Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Proposed text regarding sexual abuse scandal

Here's a revised version of the summary that I proposed much earlier. It is based on the EB Online text provided by Harmakheru and thus needs further rewriting and paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism:

"Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in countries such as Canada, the United States, , the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. In the United States alone, over 6,000 cases of molestation were authenticated, though victims’ groups asserted that additional cases went unreported because the victims were ashamed to come forward. Many of the charges alleged abuse dating as far back as the 1950s. It was further alleged that bishops had deliberately and systematically mishandled reports of abuse by shielding priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments. A number of bishops resigned as a result of the controversy over their handling of the sexual abuse incidents. By 2004 the Catholic church worldwide had paid out more than $1 billion (U.S.) in jury awards, settlements, and legal fees, leading some dioceses to seek protection under bankruptcy law. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. In the recent years, however, similar scandals have emerged in countries such as the Philippines, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Argentina, and Hong Kong."

Comments:

1. The data of "over 6,000 cases" comes from the John Jay report which focuses only on the U.S. How do we communicate the global scale of the scandal? I haven't seen any comprehensive tabulation of cases across multiple countries.

I'd leave out the second, third, and fourth sentences. I think that the fifth sentence "A number of bishops resigned ..." covers what is in the fourth without going into specific allegations. The second sentence will likely be hard to make have a worldwide focus, as I don't think there is a good source for that information at this time. The third sentence (back to the 1950s) could be removed or incorporated into one of the other sentences. I don't want to go into too much detail here, as this article is supposed to be a summary. To me, this is too much detail. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a somewhat abbreviated version of my proposed text.

Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in countries such as Canada, the United States, , the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Many of the alleged abuses dated as far back as the 1950s. Some bishops were severely criticized for their handling of reported abuse by shielding accused priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments where they continued to commit sexual offenses. As a result of the controversy, a number of bishops resigned, schools and parish churches were closed and some dioceses sought bankruptcy protection. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. In the recent years, however, similar scandals have emerged in countries such as the Philippines, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Argentina, and Hong Kong."

--Richard S (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Not bad, but perhaps still a bit wordy, though it can be knocked down. Do you have sources? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any sources at the tips of my fingers but the assertions are all so widely reported that it's just a matter of grunt work to dig up a handful of sources. I'd rather get agreement on what we want to say before I run around digging up sources for each assertion. For example, are we going to provide a separate source for every country mentioned or is there a single source that mentions all of them? --Richard S (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would nice to find a single source that covers many countries rather than splitting each out with separate sources, if possible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Several objections, similar to the original version supplied by Richard. 1. There is no mention of the fact of psychological treatment and opinion in guiding the bishops actions regarding treatment and reassignment as appeared in the original paragraph. I know some people don't want the article to contain anything other than "the evil Catholics promote abuse", but the facts must stand. 2. Closure of schools and parish churches has not been linked to the cases by the Church. 3. The "similar scandals" sentence is unsustainable. The list of countries mentioned have not had "similar scandals" In most there have been a relatively small number of individual allegations. 4. Criticism of media coverage and the singling out of the Catholic Church for unique condemnation on this issue also needs to be covered. Xandar 23:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Caution--Xandar offers absolutely no reliable sources to support his four points or to show this is not WP:OR. Skywriter (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: psychological treatment - a month ago, I would have been more sympathetic to the complaint about not mentioning psychological treatment. I have spent some significant effort on the articles about the Servants of the Paraclete and Father Gerald Fitzgerald (priest) so I know at least a little about this topic. However, it has been asserted (by Doyle) that only about 40% of accused priests received treatment which complicates the explanation here. I think it is better not to mention the psychological treatment issue here in this summary-level article. If it could be argued that the vast majority of bishops sent just about all accused priests to treatment, then there would be more of a case for discussing it. However, since mostly the multiple offenders were sent to treatment, the issue here seems to be a question of why "first offenders" were allowed to retain their pastoral duties. I recognize that it is a difficult judgment call of deciding whether the first offense was a momentary failing of the flesh that could be addressed by penance and a resolution to sin no more. However, that opens the door to a long discussion which has no place in this article and is better treated in a subsidiary article.

Re: closure of schools and parish churches not being linked to the cases by the Church. Gee, that's a new one on me. I thought it was pretty clear that there was a linkage. Seems like I've read it multiple times. Are you arguing that, if the Church didn't officially make the linkage, then the existence of such a linkage is suspect? Would you accept statements from the diocese? I'm not sure but I think we could dig up such statements if you really insist that it's necessary for you to believe that there was a linkage.

Re: similar scandals - Yeh... it's a question of apples and oranges. The problem is when is it a different kind of apple (e.g. Delicious vs. Fuji vs. Granny Smith) and when is it an orange? It's clear that the scandal in Canada was more limited in geographical scope compared to that of the U.S. and that the scandal in Ireland had a different flavor to it. I have been perplexed by this question for the last couple of years. The problem is that there are a few countries (e.g. U.S., Australia, Ireland, Philippines) where there are a substantial number of victims. Most of the other countries mentioned in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country have only a few individual cases and do not mention large numbers of victims abused by multiple clerics. I'm not sure if this is due to the difficulty of finding English-language sources covering topics in non-English-speaking countries. In any event, it is difficult to argue that scandals in other countries are of the same scale as in the U.S., Ireland and Australia.

--Richard S (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And Germany, and Belgium and Mexico where Marcial Maciel's role as papal confidante as well as the church's single largest fundraiser finally collapsed into massive, multi-tiered scandal after brewing for years. Skywriter (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The psychological aspect is more than just the number of priests sent for treatment. There is pretty clear evidence that psychological opinion until fairly recently was that predeliction to molest children was treatable and curable with discussion/therapy. I'm not sure what the details of this 40% figure are, but based on cases I have looked at, the more clear cases were usually sent for psychiatric treatment/therapy. Remember that a lot of these "cases" were often just isolated suspicions, claims, or notifications that the priest had been behaving in what some considered a suspect manner. Referal for treatment on that basis is not indicated, so simply amassing over-all numbers is not that useful an excercise. In any event the principle operated by bishops (and other institutions) was that these were treatable psychological conditions rather than - as considered now - as untreatable criminal tendencies. The psychological factors are a considerable and significant part of the reasoning behind the approach of bishops, and so need to be included if the article contains mention or criticism, of their returning priests to service.

2. Dioceses like Boston and LA have specifically denied that Church/School closures are related to abuse payouts, so I think it would need very strong contrary evidence to state otherwise. Closures of schools ansd parishes among all denominations have proceeded in the absence of such pay-outs.

3. Outside the US, Australia, Ireland and perhaps Canada, abuse cases have been isolated. The US has had by far the largest number of cases and allegations, probably a good deal more than the rest of the world combined to this date. (This may have a lot to do with the large sums of money involved, low standards of proof (all claims against the long dead paid out), and aggressive lawyers touting for clients.) There have been signs from Germany and Belgium that there may be numbers of cases to emerge there, but at the moment this is mostly supposition. I'm not sure where the idea comes from that there have been a lot of allegations in the Philippines or New Zealand. The main point is that the US case and most others are not comparable, and therefore there is no justification for adding long lists of countries with isolated allegations as if they were. Xandar 09:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, if you were to present a draft text, then it would easier to attempt a merge with Richard's. Everything else aside, all that's important are the few sentences we choose to put in the article, and the sources we choose to use. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) What sources are you choosing, Truthkeeper88? Got WP:RS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywriter (talk • contribs)

Skywriter, fwiw I'm currently unable to edit, or really to read much. As far as this article is concerned, I've gotten as far as the Reformation. Before you cast aspersions have a look at the sandbox on my page devoted to this article and decide for yourself whether I'm using reliable sources. Let's please focus on the edits and not the editors. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking Richard's proposed text and amending it to reflect my 3 main objections gives us:

Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in the United States, Ireland, Australia and several other countries. Many of the alleged abuses dated back to the 1950s. Some bishops were severely criticized for their handling of reported abuse by shielding accused priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments where a number continued to commit sexual offenses. However, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling of the type provided. As a result of the controversy, a number of bishops resigned and some dioceses sought bankruptcy protection. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. Xandar 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have my reservations about the "psychological treatment" text but I can live with it. Can we agree to insert Xandar's text without "inscribing it in stone"? I want to leave open the possibility that further discussions may modify the text and I don't want there to be a claim that this text has been "blessed by consensus". However, I think this text is superior to what we have now so let's just put it in there and we can continue to discuss improvements if there is a desire to do so. --Richard S (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this sentence: However, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling of the type provided. ruins the flow of what otherwise is a nice summary. Ideally the sentence can be removed; otherwise needs tweak. I like the rest. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine, but it will probably need a lot more references since right now it only has two. Definitly the line that says "Many of the abuses date back to the 50's" is going to need referenced. Also some of the "somes" are probably going to get "who" tags associated with them. Marauder40 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason for flags

There are real differences of opinion here and several of us have done our best to provide reliably sourced citations and those scholarly citations have been ignored or disparaged. The loudest critics have offered absolutely no citations to reliable sources to defend their position that this article should change minimally or not at all. I have stated my criticisms of the rewrite of the summary of the Britannica article and have proposed alternately sourced material, apparently to no avail.

Over the last few weeks, there have been serious efforts to introduce pertinent material and it has been thwarted at every turn in what looks very much like the censoring of well-documented facts that affects thousands of people. While some have given lip service to accepting some change, there is more energy devoted to censorship of this issue in this article. And because there is one vague mention of the topic, there is no motivation to fix the issues that have been raised at length. Therefore, I am flagging this article as not neutral due to systemic problems. The flag will remain until this is cleared up. The systemic bias is directed against the thousands of people who were abused by Catholic clergy as children and whose viewpoint is absent from this article. Indeed, scholars who have spoken up on their behalf have been called "fringe" by some editors and even when it has been proven that there is nothing fringe about them, the biased conduct continues. Skywriter (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with tagging the entire article over the possible addition of a couple sentenances and/or paragraphs. If you want to take the "modern" section of the article and others agree I don't see a problem, but tagging the entire article over this isn't warrented. Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagging the entire article over the addition of a few sentences is counterproductive. Haven't been able to keep up with this discussion but the issues for tagging don't point to the entire 2000 year history; if tags are necessary, then tag a section only. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire article is tainted by leaving out pertinent facts familiar to most of the world. I also disagree that we are talking about "a few sentences." We have argued in good faith over several weeks about the seriousness of this issue and have made no attempts to engage in edit warring. If you would like to take this to arbitration, feel free. Skywriter (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has already been subject to an RfC and covers 2000 years of history. Karanacs and I have made an attempt to begin the clean-up of the article, but I've had real-life issues intervene. Hopefully in a month so will have the opportunity to continue the work started. The most recent argument appears to be about a the addition of small amount of text to a specific section. In my view, it would be helpful to have the editors arguing present drafts of text and work from there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Against tagging. The existing text has been consensus approved twice. Once when the sentence and link on this issue went in, and again at the RfC. If Skywriter and Harmakheru have issues, they need to discuss them calmly and constructively here to develop a change to the consensus text. Xandar 23:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Xandar about the existing text having been approved by consensus. First of all, consensus can change. Second, consensus approval of a particular revision does not make each and every sentence "blessed by consensus". We have been around that block before. Third, the understanding was that the history section required significant rework after the IAR reduced it radically. The RFC only indicated which version we were going to use as a starting point and never asked us to bless the text in the revision that we !voted for.

That said, I don't like tagging of either the whole article or sections unless the text is egregiously POV. The text in question is not that egregiously POV. It's just terse. Finally, tagging is an extremely impoverished means of communication and a lousy substitute for open-minded, good faith discussions. Also, if you are sure you are in the right, then form a supermajority consensus that shows that those resisting are clearly an outnumbered minority. If you can't do that, then tagging is just sour grapes.

--Richard S (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heart of the current dispute

Xandar refers to this RfC for which the Conclusions[1] are as follows.

Conclusions

The RfC showed a clear consensus in favour of working from the "short" version; various reasons were cited by twenty-seven editors, including that its length was more appropriate, its references had been checked, it was easier to add than remove material, and the "long" version had been disputed for years (see views by Sarek of Vulcan, Septentrionalis, and Stephen B Streater).

A majority identified Nancy and Xandar's behaviour as problematic and responsible for the content dispute, or described Nancy's editing as too favourable toward the church; see above and views by Hesperian, by Harmakheru, by SandyGeorgia, and by History 2007. Fifteen agreed that Nancy should take a voluntary one-month break from the article and talk page, or that a three-month topic ban should be imposed; see view by SandyGeorgia. Several said that the RfC was harmful or pointless. Ten agreed or partly agreed that, regardless of the specific content issues, the way the "short" version of the article had been inserted was uncollaborative, or that an article such as this could not be written using Wikipedia's bottom-up model; see views by History 2007 and by Ling.Nut. Eight agreed that the "short" version was inadequate, inaccurate, or a travesty; see views by NancyHeise and by Xandar.

Nancy announced just before the RfC closed that she had decided to take a break. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Xandar's disruptive behavior continues as described in the RfC summary. On her user page Nancy Heise explains, "I am a convert to the Catholic Church, following a religious experience." The RfC in the springtime was brought at Nancy's request. While it is admirable that she states her bias, it is a real bias. Reliance on Nancy's bias to guide the writing of this article can not lead to a neutral or unbiased article.

The differences that have been described recently are quite different from the three narrow choices proffered by Nancy in that RfC. Since then, many more sources have been cited as WP:RS and yet, those resources have been rejected, out of hand, and without citing any sources, by some editors despite the showing that the new resources are scholarly books and articles that have been subjected to peer review.

The central dispute is over whether scholars of the sexual abuse crisis within the Catholic Church will be excluded from this article; some editors here contend that they must be excluded. A recent article In Abuse Crisis, a Church Is Pitted Against Society and Itself in the NYT pinpoints the differences that are at play throughout the church on this issue. I think that article also pinpoints the larger area of dispute among the editors here.

The specifics of the current dispute are as follows. Certain Wikipedia editors reject the use of key topical experts. For example, law professor Timothy B. Lytton has written, Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Clergy Sexual Abuse (304 page; Harvard University Press (May 30, 2008) ISBN 978-0674028104). Summary: "The sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy is arguably the most acute crisis Catholicism has faced since the Reformation. The prevalence of clergy sexual abuse and its shocking cover-up by church officials have obscured the largely untold story of the tort system's remarkable success in bringing the scandal to light, focusing attention on the need for institutional reform, and spurring church leaders and public officials into action."

Lytton's own book was reviewed by Michael R. Merz, Chair, National Review Board of the Catholic Bishops Conference. Merz wrote: "Timothy Lytton makes a persuasive, even compelling, argument that tort litigation set the agenda for policymakers dealing with sexual abuse of minors in the American Catholic Church. His learned interdisciplinary approach blends institutional analysis with acute observation of how the victims' counsel used the media to make the issue salient to the public and the discovery process to keep the issue interesting to the media. His book should be read, indeed studied carefully, by anyone who wants to understand the crisis as a whole."

In the Journal of Law and Religion, Lytton, a subject matter expert, reviewed Vol. XXII 2006-2007 No. 2 pp. 615-18 Sex, Priests, And Secret Codes: The Catholic Church’S 2,000-Year Paper Trail Of Sexual Abuse by Thomas P. Doyle, A.W. Richard Sipe and Patrick J. Wall 2006. pp. 388. ISBN: 1-566- 25265-2.

Some editors here, notably Xandar but there are others too, insist that Doyle, Sipe et al. be excluded as resources. This is the heart of this dispute and the systemic bias that skews neutrality. The pope himself has said that the clergy sex abuse crisis is "terrifying" and the pope's own assessment is not even reflected. Pope: Sex abuse scandal'terrifying'

Should the personal opinion of individual editors prevail over topical experts? Or should the section on sex abuse by clergy be tightly written, several paragraphs long to fairly reflect the facts as well as the different sides of this issue about which a number of books and a great number of article have been written over the last 25 years? Why is the topic worth several paragraphs? Because a subject matter expert has said the clergy sex abuse crisis is the most acute crisis Catholicism has faced since the Reformation. Skywriter (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I may be mistaken but I have yet to see any proposed wording from you (or Harmakheru.) It's one thing to keep bringing up facts, tagging the article, putting in inflamatory things that can't be used since they are just synthesis or opinion like the last sentence comparing the abuse to the reformation. How about making a proposal that follows WP polices related to reliable sources, undue weight, etc. that people can actually put their teeth around. Until that happens this talk page continues to just be a soapbox. Marauder40 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have formed unusually strong opinions of these books. Have you read either one? Skywriter (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to make two points:

First of all, not everything an author writes is of equal credibility. Doyle and Sipe write many things which I am willing to accept as factual. However, they also write hyperbolic rhetoric which are opinion, not fact. So does Lytton. For example, in Skywriter's comment above, he cites Merz as saying ""Timothy Lytton makes a persuasive, even compelling, argument that tort litigation set the agenda ...". OK, great. I can accept the central thesis (i.e. "that tort litigation set the agenda...". But take a look at what Lytton wrote "The sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy is arguably the most acute crisis Catholicism has faced since the Reformation." That's an assessment that is more one of subjective judgment. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Different people can differ reasonably on that assertion. We should not accept such assertions uncritically any more than we would accept similar assertions from the other side. We must be careful to separate fact from opinion and assert only facts as facts, making careful to present opinions as opinions citing them to the person holding that opinion.

Secondly, there's lots of stuff that I would be willing to accept, even eager to insert into the article on Catholic sex abuse cases. I have invested much time into that article and its related subarticles. However, even that article has had problems with being too long and much of the detail has been moved into yet another level of subsidiary articles. My concern here is that we not get into details here and that we avoid getting into anything that is controversial because of the limited amount of space that we have. We do not have space in this article to provide "equal time" for all the rebuttals that will surely follow. That's why we need to keep the treatment terse and summary in nature here and provide the details in subsidiary articles that we link to.

--Richard S (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, here. Thanks, Richard, for eloquently stating this. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The pope said the clergy sex abuse crisis is "terrifying." That too is strong language. Whether you accept or don't accept particular concepts is beside the point. Both the Lytton book and the Doyle book offer useful histories of the clergy sex abuse scandal and both are heavily footnoted. Both also are fair in that adequate space is given to opposing arguments. My point in referencing the Lytton book is not to blow the horn of lawyers but rather to show that the subject has been explored extensively, that there is an extensive body of work that contains the objective record of facts, and that this is a serious issue that merits serious attention, something that does not exist in this article. For most of the several weeks I have been contributing to this talk page, I have seen the emphasis on rejecting the work of scholars because editors here have personal biases and not because any reliable source has declared their work to be problematic or fringe but due to the personal biases of the individual editors who offer no sources for their opinions. I can not evaluate the paragraph you have offered above for the reasons given earlier: You said you didn't know how much of it was plagiarism of another encyclopedia. I went to extensive effort to find reliable sources and I presented them on this page as did another editor. Until there is agreement on what sources are acceptable, I do not know how to proceed.

There have been claims that any language beyond the one sentence now present is WP:Undue weight. I offered an assessment by a topical scholar who put the matter into some perspective and I offered the pope's own assessment. You chose to ignore the pope's comment and proceeded to personally disagree with the subject matter expert.

Now it is your personal opinion (and not the assessment of any WP:RS such as the reviewer from the National Review Board of the Catholic Bishops Conference who praised Lytton's book) that The sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy is or is not the most acute crisis Catholicism has faced since the Reformation. We are not supposed to be injecting personal opinion into these articles and yet personal opinion dominates what goes into and is being excluded from this article. Is it possible to take one's personal opinion out of the article when the motivation is to protect the church from any negative comments? No. I don't think so. I also don't see how it is possible to operate within Wikipedia guidelines and not come up with a reliable source to challenge an assertion. Personal opinion lacks the same weight as a reliable source. Will the summary of Lytton's book be kept out of this article because of the personal opinions of editors here? Or because a reliable source has commented? And then when someone finds a reliable source to say no, the clergy sexual abuse crisis is the worst thing since sliced white, and not the Reformation, will both comments be excluded because they are unpleasant and editors here prefer their own personal opinions to secondary sources. I give a large number of people inside the Catholic Church credit for trying to address this. In the olden days, these crimes were covered up and the crimes flourished under cover. Skywriter (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, Skywriter, let's use some common sense. If you can't see that calling the sexual abuse crisis "the greatest crisis the Church has faced since the Reformation" is opinion and hyperbolic opinion at that, we may as well call it quits and stop talking. You can't leave such a judgment to any one person and it is way too early to make such a judgment. Only history can make such a determination. Let's get back together in 50 or 100 years and then we can reassess the situation. I certainly agree that some people see it that way and I can understand why they feel that way. They have a right to their opinion but we must see it as opinion, not indisputable fact.

Now, as for the Pope calling the scandal "terrifying", I suspect that if you look at his actual words in context, he was not saying the same thing as Lytton. So please, let's be careful not to perform unwarranted synthesis.

I also want to clarify one thing: You have asserted on at least two occasions that I "said you didn't know how much of it was plagiarism of another encyclopedia." You misunderstood me. I was clearly acknowledging that my proposed text was plagiarism of the Encyclopedia Britannica Online text that Harmakheru provided and I was clearly cognizant that such plagiarism would be unacceptable in Wikipedia. However, my approach was to say "Let's start with understanding what points the EB Online makes and then write a paragraph that covers the same points but with original writing." If we can come to an agreement as to what points we want to have in this article, we can rewrite and wordsmith afterwards to avoid plagiarism or even "close paraphrasing".

NB: I am NOT saying that we should use the EB Online as our sole authoritative source. I do understand that encyclopedias are not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. I am saying that we should look at multiple encyclopedias and books that cover the history of the Church and use those sources to determine which points are worth mentioning in this article and which should be relegated to subsidiary detail articles. Once we have come to an agreement as to which points to mention in the text, we can go off and find sources for those points. Presumably if a point is mentioned in an encyclopedia or a general history of the Church, it can be sourced without too much trouble. As Karanacs pointed out, it is difficult to start with a book focused on a specific topic and determine how NPOV that particular author is and which points should be mentioned in a summary. It is much better to start with an NPOV treatment of the topic and then find sources to support the points in it.

--Richard S (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard S wrote: It is much better to start with an NPOV treatment of the topic and then find sources to support the points in it.

One person's NPOV is another person's bias. It is more useful to begin with what the secondary sources have said and build from there. So long as the sources are shown, the biases are known. Building an article absent the secondary sources equals an article based on personal opinion.

I also think you are making this much more difficult than it is. "meet you in 100 years" is not an option. If you were correct, we could take the 100-year approach with every article and none would be written.

Is the comparison to the Reformation that far-fetched? I don't share your personal opinion but will not argue the point because this is not the place to do so. At the moment, what we have is an editor who disagrees with a subject matter expert arguing that the subject matter expert's assessment should be excluded because the editor disagrees with the point. It is of course blather to declare that unless I agree with you on the subject of the comparison to the reformation, there's no point in talking further.

There's a plethora of articles in the newspapers and magazines that cover this issue in plenty of depth and many of them could be used as sources. Bishop Gregory makes the useful point that the requirement that sex abuse by clergy now be reported to civil authorities is a major turning point. [2] I submit that sourced statement for inclusion. Does anyone disagree?

You chose to ignore one of the articles I mentioned in favor of highlighting your disagreements with the subject matter expert. So I'll repeat the point and maybe you will consider it.

A recent article In Abuse Crisis, a Church Is Pitted Against Society and Itself in the NYT pinpoints the differences that are at play throughout the church on this issue. I think that article also pinpoints the larger area of dispute among the editors here.

PS: A nuance you are ignoring in terms of the papal statement is that the current pope gets a lot more credit than his predecessor for facing up to and trying to resolve the scandal. Skywriter (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO the NYT article is a good starting place and much can be mined from it. No one is denying that the abuse should be covered - from my perspective the issue is how to cram it all into a sentence or two. How about presenting a draft based on that article and we take it from there? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but even the NYT article is clearly biased. (NB: I'm not saying I disagree with it. I'm just saying that it says there are two POVs but sides with one of them.) I think the article can be used in the detailed article Catholic sex abuse cases (Hint: We could use the help of Skywriter and Harmakheru on that and related articles.) It might also be useful to take the key point (that there is an internal conflict within the Church about how to handle the crisis) and mention it in this article. See my comment below titled "Due weight and the value of consulting tertiary sources".

Based on his response to Karanacs below, it does seem that Skywriter has finally gotten the point that the reason we are trying to keep the text on this topic concise is that this is a summary-level article which is at least two levels of summary away from the detail article. As such, I think 5-6 sentences is an absolute maximum though bordering on undue weight and 3-4 sentences is probably preferable. The general consensus (with a few dissenters) seems to be that 1-2 sentences would be too terse.

--Richard S (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, I think you need to take a deep breath. The vast majority of us agree with your personal POV that the scandal is heartbreaking, unacceptable, and may well be the greatest crisis the Church has seen since the reformation. But, as you say, that's our opinion, and our opinions don't matter. We could write pages about this topic, using many of the scholarly sources presented on this talk page, but this article is not the place for that. This particular article is a summary of a vast institution with a lengthy history, and we have to be very careful to touch on the issues without going into too much detail, instead pointing readers to the more specialized articles that can go into a great deal of depth. It's important to keep in mind that the history section of this article is supposed to be a summary of History of the Catholic Church, which would then summarize our articles on the sex abuses. That means we should be two levels removed from the details. We can argue about how much this article should say and which facts to cover ad nauseum, but without going back to more general sources to see how they cover the topic, we're not getting anywhere. Neither Truthkeeper nor I are able at the moment to go through the sources for the more recent information. Xandar has MacCulloch's Christianity - perhaps he can look there to see how the scandals are covered. Could you perhaps also look at the library for other recently published broad overviews to see how much weight is given to the scandal? Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, why are you putting words in my mouth? None of the opinions you attribute to me are mine, nor or any of the words you attribute. I reported the opinion of scholarly secondary sources to question why their views are summarily rejected here.

I now grasp your point that this is supposed to be a summary of other articles. Thank you for stating that. I have been wondering why there are two such articles and you have answered that.Skywriter (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Due weight and the value of consulting tertiary sources

Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources because doing so often requires editors to interpret the meaning and importance of such sources. This kind of analysis can result in original research and so the use of secondary sources is much preferred. However, one point that is often missed is that many secondary sources can be biased and so it is often necessary to qualify the assertion with phrases such as "Some historians such as X, Y and Z believe..." or "According to X, ....". This is especially true when using books focused on a single subject such as the sexual abuse scandal. It is natural for the author to assert that the subject is important. After all, if it were not, why would he write a book and why would you read it? However, one has to take such assertions with a grain of salt and look to other sources to evaluate the relative importance of the subject. That is when tertiary sources such as encyclopedias and books providing broad overviews of the general subject come in handy. That said, it may be useful to add a sentence indicating how important some people think the crisis is. We run the risk of the text becoming too long but such a sentence would read something like "Some observers view the sexual abuse scandal as one of the most serious to confront the Church in centuries." (or "since the Reformation" if you insist)

The critical point here is, if we choose to say anything at all, it is overreaching to assert "The sexual abuse scandal is one of the most serious to confront the Church in centuries." That fails to strike an NPOV stance.

--Richard S (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And I'm sorry to see, on one of my periodic check-ups, that the article seems to be making no progress at all, but just finding new ways for discussion to get bogged down. One begins to wonder if the current "B" rating can be justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper and I have both had personal issues that have prevented us from devoting as much time to the article this summer, and no one else is reading the big history books :( Hopefully we'll get back on track this fall. Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do hope to back on track here. Just had a look at the article - the lead seems to be gone. A lot of work to be done - and help very much welcome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are substantial differences in how serious some people consider the abuse scandals to be. There is nothing to be gained from saying, "its not that serious," "its incredibly serious" "its quite serious" etc. It just wastes space on opinionising. Let the reader decide how serious they think it is. Xandar 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The sentence "There are substantial differences in how serious some people consider the abuse scandals to be." should be in Wikipedia although not necessarily in this article but most certainly in the article Catholic sex abuse cases. It is an important feature of the scandal that there are those who think this is "the greatest challenge to the Church since the Reformation" and others who view it as a serious problem that needs to be dealt with but just one among many issues that the Church has to deal with. I don't have time to do this right now but I will work on incorporating this point into Catholic sex abuse cases. --Richard S (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War

One of the subjects of heated discussion on this Talk Page has been the role of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil War. I have cobbled together an article on this topic titled Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War using text copied from other Wikipedia articles. Please take a look at this article and help improve it. Thanks. --Richard S (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Corruption

The Abuse crisis is nothing like the Reformation, which was a deep theological, political and institutional assault on Catholicism at every level. McCulloch gives the scandals two paragraphs, approximately one page (p.999) in his 1,200 page book. Xandar 00:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, I would not expect McCulloch to delve into sexual abuse of children by the clergy. Why would he? His is a magisterial history, from an Anglican perspective, of all of the different religions in Christianity with one section on the Roman church. Way too far afield to shed light on this topic.

The clergy sex abuse scandal and the Reformation have [|corruption] in the church hierarchy in common. The single major reform in this current (50-year-old) crisis is that the Vatican has now agreedMay 18, 2010 to turn over priests who commit crimes to civil authorities for criminal prosecution. This has never happened before with the result that pedophiles with a collar have been treated quite differently than pedophiles who don't wear the priestly collar. The combination of sunshine in the news media, civil litigation, and criminal prosecutions helped to bring about these changes. Skywriter (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting back into arguing about the topic rather than talking about the article. However I would disagree strongly with your allegation that there has been "corruption in the Church heirarchy, and with the unsubstantiated contention that priests have been treated differently to others accused of abuse of minors. In fact some priests have been convicted and given lengthy sentences in controversial circumstances involving so-called "recovered memory syndrome" and other irregularities. The reporting of allegations to the authorities as standard practice is new to all religious groups and most major secular institutions in the US, UK and elsewhere. Xandar 20:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Really, Xandar? Got sources? It is rare see such a muscular defense of convicted pedophiles coupled with the "everybody does it defense," all without providing one solitary secondary source to support the assertions. Making the case for corruption, these are secondary source links to the other sides to this story. (Usually when people use the word scandal, corruption is present.) These links are mostly from the usual suspect sources, straight news stories from The New York Times, The Times of London, CBS, NPR, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, a book, and so on though a few editorials are included.Timeline: US Church sex scandal [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Archdiocese for Years Kept Claims of Abuse From Police, Church also let accused priests flee, say documents, interviews. But Mahony has been relatively aggressive in dismissing clergy. Catholic Church Asking Court to Void California's 2003 Abuse Law [16] [17] A long but prophetic article from 1993. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]5 [27]4 [28] [29] Catholic abuse scandal edges closer to pope. The problem is no longer an American aberration, and Catholics want to know what Pope Benedict knew when he was archbishop of Munich. Lawler, Philip F. The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture Encounter Books (August 3, 2010) ISBN 978-1594033742 Vatican officials defend pope in German abuse scandal. They deny that Benedict, as archbishop of Munich, had a role in an accused child abuser's reinstatement to priestly duties. Future pope had concerns about defrocking California priest accused of molestation, letter shows Unless the condemnation of sexual abuse by priests is accompanied by punishment, the Roman Catholic Church's reputation will continue to suffer. A pope with a problem. By lashing out at the coverage of the sexual abuse scandal, the Roman Catholic Church shows it has learned little from the squalid affair. [30] Belgian Church Leader Urged Victim to Be Silent [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Is the Church Engaged In Organized Crime? ] March 26, 2010 Pope accused of ignoring pleas to stop priest who molested 200 deaf boys [37] From The Times of London. March 24, 2010. Call the police: what the Pope should have said [38] [39] [40] [41] Orange Diocese Gives Details on Sex Abuse. Documents show how officials covered for, transferred and even promoted pedophiles. Cardinal Mahony under federal fraud probe over abusive priests. The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles is pursuing the theory that the prelate deprived parishioners of 'the right of honest services' by failing to protect their children from predatory clerics. [42] Skywriter (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

<inserted>Most of the stuff above is the epitome of the slanted, purple-prose-style coverage from a subset of New York Times journalists and others of similar pursuasion that has been condemned for inaccuracy bias and dishonesty by so many sources, including the failed attempts to smear Pope Benedict. I am not going into the details of individually refuting any of the obsessively gathered collection above, because that is not the purpose of this page. Nor is it the purpose of this page to collect the most slanted junk available on the web. It is to produce a factual balanced article. And no part of the Church has been charged, let alone convicted of any corruption or crime, because such charges have not been justified by the facts, however much anti-Catholic journalists might rant. Xandar 22:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a useless dispute hinging on the definition of the word "corruption". It's obvious that mistakes were made and that evil triumphed over good. Now, whether this triumph was due to "corruption", misdirected good intentions or simply a failure to act positively to counter evil is a debate that can go on forever. Let's go back to Xandar's point... perhaps the reason that the sexual abuse crisis does not begin to match the Reformation in scale is that, during the Reformation, the Church refused to accept the precepts of the reformers and the reformers decided that the only home for them was outside the Church. Whether you think the Church has adequately addressed the problem of sexual abuse or not, it has certainly taken some steps in that direction and there are few reformers who are arguing that the only home for them is outside the Church. Like the original reformers of the Reformation, many of them would prefer to remain within the Church than without and those who would find it impossible to remain within the Church are generally not starting new churches but joining existing ones or abandoning religion altogether. --Richard S (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, you definitely have an agenda against this particular religious group (the Catholic Church). You need to check that at the door to maintain NPOV. Xandar's statements are correct and easily verifiable.Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which resources of Xandar's do you refer to, Aphelion? Central to this dispute is that Xandar offers absolutely no links to reliable sources to support his viewpoint. I have linked to more than one hundred. Your guidance is misplaced and, yes, your non-neutral viewpoint is showing. Skywriter (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not convinced that Skywriter has to "check his POV at the door". All that's needed is that he recognize that his POV is just that, a "point of view" of which there are others. To be NPOV, we need to present all significant POVs without giving any of them undue weight. It's clear that Skywriter's POV is a significant POV (for example, it is more or less what SNAP would argue). If we were discussing the Catholic sex abuse cases article, I would certainly want to have this POV well-represented. The question we have to answer is whether this POV is adequately presented in this article given the limited amount of space that we have. --Richard S (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Richardshusr, I don't know what SNAP is and have never visited their website if they have one. I am a careful reader of mainstream media and I edit a wide variety of articles on Wikipedia. All of the resources I have provided here are links to articles in the mainstream media concerning sex abuse of children by Catholic clergy. Those articles are far from comprehensive though they do demonstrate the seriousness with which the mainstream media treats this issue. Now mainstream media is good enough for most Wikipedia articles and yet seems not to be good enough for this one. I wonder why not. For many years, the Catholic hierarchy denied and covered up these crimes and the cover-up got them into deep trouble with the public. Now various people here have argued that these cases are not so important to deserve more than a vague sentence. You argue there is a "space" issue. I don't think so. I think these are excuses for not coming to terms with a topic that most people not editing this article long ago decided is important enough to treat with dignity and honesty. Now the stridency of the opposition to change in this article has apparently driven many editors away and I have taken it off my watch list because I choose not to involve myself in a pissing match. That does not mean I will not visit occasionally to encourage you and other editors to embrace this topic forthrightly and address it with honesty. Certainly, other editors including myself have provided you with more than sufficient resources. Therefore, lack of research is not the issue. It is a question of willingness to come to terms with a difficult issue. Skywriter (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, I don't dispute that this is an important issue. That position belongs to other editors such as User:Xandar. My objection is the use of the word "corruption" which is subject to multiple definitions and carries a harshly critical POV. It is a prominent POV but it is not the only one and an NPOV treatment would require presentation of all significant POVs. If you earnestly want to resolve the impasse, you might consider availing yourself of one of the Wikipedia mechanisms for dispute resolution. I will gladly join with you as far as I can for I myself am frustrated by the intransigence of some of the other editors of this article. --Richard S (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the word corruption is used in the article, I don't care. My sole viewpoint is that the topic is not covered except for a vague sentence written in the passive voice, which seems to place nearly no weight at all to a subject deserving of more weight. I plan to add the pope's own comments on this topic that are all over the media today. If someone decides to remove that, then yes, some form of dispute resolution is in order. Skywriter (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually Skywriter, the mere fact that you posted an inordinate and unnecessary amount of sources which supposedly back your position gives your non-NPOV away. Truthfully, many, including Philip Jenkins (a non-Catholic, by the way) and others, who have studied the sex abuse crisis in depth and have presented a straightforward and verifiable account of the facts behind the scandal support Xandar's contentions (and mine). I suggest you read the studies, like the John Jay Report, the Murphy Report, and Philip Jenkin's book, The Myth of the Pedophile Priest— instead of relying on weak and biased "opinion" sources and citing only ones that support your own agenda. The statistical number of abusers in the Catholic Church was less than half of the statistical number found in other public service sectors. For example, Catholic abuse cases in 1980 (the peak of the abuse crisis) were 2-5% of ordained priests. the statistical number of paedophiles in the United States public school systems is 10% or more. "Sex Abuse in Public Schools Worse than in the Church" http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml I have no need to post an excessive and unnecessary amount of dither, just some references and a link. At the same time, both views must be assimilated into the article for representation's sake and to balance and maintain NPOV. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

22 Eastern Churches

I'm sure that there is not only a good reason why the 22 autonomous Eastern Churches are not mentioned by quantity and why there is no place to do so either. I'm not really interested in recalling the probably lengthy discussion. Just surprising to not find it here... or any place for it. Student7 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There probably wasn't a discussion, since much of the article was abruptly changed six months ago. Can you give some idea of what you would like the article to say on this, and we can discuss. Xandar 20:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also one autonomous "Western" Catholic church as per Particular churches. I do think that there should be a link to that article. There is currently a link to Eastern Catholic Churches in the first sentence of the article, but a more direct reference in "Hierarchy, personnel and institutions," if nowhere else, might be in order. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper I see, keeps on taking reference to the 22 Eastern Churches out of the Lead, without any discussion. Why? Xandar 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Style. Haldraper (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate a stylistic reason for the lead. A bit distracting considering the numbers. Seems like it should be somewhere in the article though. Just a thought. Maybe the "Eastern Catholic churches" link takes care of it? Student7 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think so, anyone wanting more info on them will click on the link. Haldraper (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Child sex abuse

It seems to me extraordinary that as far as I can see the child sex abuse scandal, one of the most important issues, if not the most important, affecting the church in recent decades, occupies just one sentence of this article - about one-tenth of the space allocated to a single pope (John Paul II). Not even a paragraph, let alone a sub-heading. It really couldn't have a smaller mention. Ben Finn (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ben, if you look through the archive of the talk page you'll see this issue has been a battleground between those who wanted to criticise and those wanted to excuse the Church's actions. The current, minimal version is a result of that and at least meets WP:NPOV which many of its predecessors were very far from. Haldraper (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I see that, but a single sentence is clearly not adequate coverage of the topic! Ben Finn (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Queen EII Highlights Important points of Catholic Church

This article is Queen Elizabeth's speech today welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to her country. [43]. She highlights the Church's accomplishments in the world. I think the Wikipedia article should include some sort of overview of what the Church actually does. 65.97.135.45 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Episcopal conferences

In the hierarchy and organization section, some mention of episcopal conferences should be made. They are rather important in the current governance of the church. While we're at it, the role of the apostolic nuncio should also be briefly introduced. Gentgeen (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentgeen, episcopal conferences are organizational in nature; they are neither doctrinal or spiritually authoritative bodies within the Church. Their documents only have weight inasmuch as individual bishops promulgate them in their own dioceses. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph is being continually reverted. Let's settle on a sufficient, concise, and most importantly, unambiguous version. The "contested" clauses are as follows: "According to Catholic dogma, the Church's bishops are successors of Christ's Apostles and the Pope is the successor of St. Peter; accordingly by guidance of the Holy Spirit the Pope or general councils of the Church can infallibly define dogma concerning faith and morals."

The mentioning of General Councils was necessary, as that is actually the more common mode of definition of dogmata; it is also a part of the Catholic concept of the Church's dogmatic infallibility.

"The Catholic Church maintains to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ."

This, of course, follows closely with the previously mentioned doctrines (apostolic succession, infallibility, and indefectibility) and is a central dogma of the Catholic religion. because of that, it naturally should be mentioned here.

"The central act of Catholic worship is the Mass, in which the Eucharist is offered to God and consumed by the faithful."

This is far better than the previously ambiguous statement, because it gives the context of the Eucharist; it's also bizarre, from a Catholic point-of-view, to refer to the Eucharist as a "component". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolver-Aphelion (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment - the second contested sentence is poor grammar. The third is jargon - a non-Catholic is not necessarily going to understand that at all. Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two problems with the new additions: that they make the lead less concise without adding essential information and also give it a less encyclopaedic, more 'insider', tone.

The issue of church councils being capable of making infallible definitions of dogma belongs in the body of the article, not the lead.

"The Catholic Church maintains to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ." What does this add to the preceding statement about the apostolic succession? It seems to me to just repeat it in another form.

"The central act of Catholic worship is the Mass, in which the Eucharist is offered to God and consumed by the faithful." is indeed written "from a Catholic point-of-view" as Resolver-Aphelion admits. Can s/he provide reliable sources for the contention that "the Eucharist is offered to God" or that it is "consumed by the faithful"? Haldraper (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In the second sentence, it is not a grammatical problem, although it is worded awkwardly, and should be worded better. Nonetheless, it is a very notable characteristic of Catholic religion (like the Eastern Orthodox, or, say, the Jacobites). And, how does Papal infalliblity merit being in the lead, but not General Councils? If anything, the General Councils should be mentioned first, because the amount of defined dogmata have been overwhelmingly defined by General Councils, not by a given Pope.

The third is not jargon. "Mass" is less "jargon-y" than Eucharist even. It clarifies and gives context to the mentioning of the Eucharist.

I also think you're wrong on all three accounts, no offence. They do not make it overly lengthy, they do add essential information, and I fail to see how they give it an "insider" tone. The previous rendering of the paragraph makes the writer sound unfamiliar with what the article is dealing with, as it glosses over central and related facts.

You asked, what does the sentence "The Catholic Church maintains to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ," add to the paragraph and stated that it is a mere rephrasing of what is said about apostolic succession. For instance, the Anglican Communion does not believe that it alone constitutes the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"— But the Roman Catholic Church does, which distinguishes it as not only claiming to have apostolic succession, but also claiming to be the "one true Church" (the concept of which is conveniently linked).

And, yes, I can provide links that state the Eucharist is "offered to God" and "consumed by the faithful": http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

From the article: "The Divine institution of the sacrifice of the altar is proved by showing:

• that the 'shedding of blood' spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross;
• that it was a true and real sacrifice;
• that it was considered a permanent institution in the Church." Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolver, I didn't ask you for a link showing what the Church itself believes but a reliable source for the bald statement you want to insert that the Eucharist is offered to God and consumed by the faithful.

This statement presupposes several things, not least the existence of God and the mental state of communicants, which are surely beyond academic enquiry. Haldraper (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether God exists or not is irrelevant; the Eucharist is offered to Him/It, regardless of whether He's there or not. It's right in the text of the Mass. And one only need go to a Catholic Church on Sunday to see "the Faithful" consuming the Eucharist. It's part of the Rite of the Mass. Your objections seem a bit bewildering and odd to me.

At any rate, let's work on a compromise text for the paragraph, one that we can both agree one, and which contains the additional necessary information. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text regarding sexual abuse scandal (retrieved from Talk Page archive)

Here's a revised version of the summary that I proposed much earlier. It is based on the EB Online text provided by Harmakheru and thus needs further rewriting and paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism:

"Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in countries such as Canada, the United States, , the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. In the United States alone, over 6,000 cases of molestation were authenticated, though victims’ groups asserted that additional cases went unreported because the victims were ashamed to come forward. Many of the charges alleged abuse dating as far back as the 1950s. It was further alleged that bishops had deliberately and systematically mishandled reports of abuse by shielding priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments. A number of bishops resigned as a result of the controversy over their handling of the sexual abuse incidents. By 2004 the Catholic church worldwide had paid out more than $1 billion (U.S.) in jury awards, settlements, and legal fees, leading some dioceses to seek protection under bankruptcy law. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. In the recent years, however, similar scandals have emerged in countries such as the Philippines, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Argentina, and Hong Kong."

Comments:

1. The data of "over 6,000 cases" comes from the John Jay report which focuses only on the U.S. How do we communicate the global scale of the scandal? I haven't seen any comprehensive tabulation of cases across multiple countries.

I'd leave out the second, third, and fourth sentences. I think that the fifth sentence "A number of bishops resigned ..." covers what is in the fourth without going into specific allegations. The second sentence will likely be hard to make have a worldwide focus, as I don't think there is a good source for that information at this time. The third sentence (back to the 1950s) could be removed or incorporated into one of the other sentences. I don't want to go into too much detail here, as this article is supposed to be a summary. To me, this is too much detail. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a somewhat abbreviated version of my proposed text.

Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in countries such as Canada, the United States, , the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Many of the alleged abuses dated as far back as the 1950s. Some bishops were severely criticized for their handling of reported abuse by shielding accused priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments where they continued to commit sexual offenses. As a result of the controversy, a number of bishops resigned, schools and parish churches were closed and some dioceses sought bankruptcy protection. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. In the recent years, however, similar scandals have emerged in countries such as the Philippines, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Argentina, and Hong Kong."

--Richard S (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Not bad, but perhaps still a bit wordy, though it can be knocked down. Do you have sources? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any sources at the tips of my fingers but the assertions are all so widely reported that it's just a matter of grunt work to dig up a handful of sources. I'd rather get agreement on what we want to say before I run around digging up sources for each assertion. For example, are we going to provide a separate source for every country mentioned or is there a single source that mentions all of them? --Richard S (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would nice to find a single source that covers many countries rather than splitting each out with separate sources, if possible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Several objections, similar to the original version supplied by Richard. 1. There is no mention of the fact of psychological treatment and opinion in guiding the bishops actions regarding treatment and reassignment as appeared in the original paragraph. I know some people don't want the article to contain anything other than "the evil Catholics promote abuse", but the facts must stand. 2. Closure of schools and parish churches has not been linked to the cases by the Church. 3. The "similar scandals" sentence is unsustainable. The list of countries mentioned have not had "similar scandals" In most there have been a relatively small number of individual allegations. 4. Criticism of media coverage and the singling out of the Catholic Church for unique condemnation on this issue also needs to be covered. Xandar 23:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Caution--Xandar offers absolutely no reliable sources to support his four points or to show this is not WP:OR. Skywriter (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: psychological treatment - a month ago, I would have been more sympathetic to the complaint about not mentioning psychological treatment. I have spent some significant effort on the articles about the Servants of the Paraclete and Father Gerald Fitzgerald (priest) so I know at least a little about this topic. However, it has been asserted (by Doyle) that only about 40% of accused priests received treatment which complicates the explanation here. I think it is better not to mention the psychological treatment issue here in this summary-level article. If it could be argued that the vast majority of bishops sent just about all accused priests to treatment, then there would be more of a case for discussing it. However, since mostly the multiple offenders were sent to treatment, the issue here seems to be a question of why "first offenders" were allowed to retain their pastoral duties. I recognize that it is a difficult judgment call of deciding whether the first offense was a momentary failing of the flesh that could be addressed by penance and a resolution to sin no more. However, that opens the door to a long discussion which has no place in this article and is better treated in a subsidiary article.

Re: closure of schools and parish churches not being linked to the cases by the Church. Gee, that's a new one on me. I thought it was pretty clear that there was a linkage. Seems like I've read it multiple times. Are you arguing that, if the Church didn't officially make the linkage, then the existence of such a linkage is suspect? Would you accept statements from the diocese? I'm not sure but I think we could dig up such statements if you really insist that it's necessary for you to believe that there was a linkage.

Re: similar scandals - Yeh... it's a question of apples and oranges. The problem is when is it a different kind of apple (e.g. Delicious vs. Fuji vs. Granny Smith) and when is it an orange? It's clear that the scandal in Canada was more limited in geographical scope compared to that of the U.S. and that the scandal in Ireland had a different flavor to it. I have been perplexed by this question for the last couple of years. The problem is that there are a few countries (e.g. U.S., Australia, Ireland, Philippines) where there are a substantial number of victims. Most of the other countries mentioned in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country have only a few individual cases and do not mention large numbers of victims abused by multiple clerics. I'm not sure if this is due to the difficulty of finding English-language sources covering topics in non-English-speaking countries. In any event, it is difficult to argue that scandals in other countries are of the same scale as in the U.S., Ireland and Australia.

--Richard S (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And Germany, and Belgium and Mexico where Marcial Maciel's role as papal confidante as well as the church's single largest fundraiser finally collapsed into massive, multi-tiered scandal after brewing for years. Skywriter (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The psychological aspect is more than just the number of priests sent for treatment. There is pretty clear evidence that psychological opinion until fairly recently was that predeliction to molest children was treatable and curable with discussion/therapy. I'm not sure what the details of this 40% figure are, but based on cases I have looked at, the more clear cases were usually sent for psychiatric treatment/therapy. Remember that a lot of these "cases" were often just isolated suspicions, claims, or notifications that the priest had been behaving in what some considered a suspect manner. Referal for treatment on that basis is not indicated, so simply amassing over-all numbers is not that useful an excercise. In any event the principle operated by bishops (and other institutions) was that these were treatable psychological conditions rather than - as considered now - as untreatable criminal tendencies. The psychological factors are a considerable and significant part of the reasoning behind the approach of bishops, and so need to be included if the article contains mention or criticism, of their returning priests to service.

2. Dioceses like Boston and LA have specifically denied that Church/School closures are related to abuse payouts, so I think it would need very strong contrary evidence to state otherwise. Closures of schools ansd parishes among all denominations have proceeded in the absence of such pay-outs.

3. Outside the US, Australia, Ireland and perhaps Canada, abuse cases have been isolated. The US has had by far the largest number of cases and allegations, probably a good deal more than the rest of the world combined to this date. (This may have a lot to do with the large sums of money involved, low standards of proof (all claims against the long dead paid out), and aggressive lawyers touting for clients.) There have been signs from Germany and Belgium that there may be numbers of cases to emerge there, but at the moment this is mostly supposition. I'm not sure where the idea comes from that there have been a lot of allegations in the Philippines or New Zealand. The main point is that the US case and most others are not comparable, and therefore there is no justification for adding long lists of countries with isolated allegations as if they were. Xandar 09:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, if you were to present a draft text, then it would easier to attempt a merge with Richard's. Everything else aside, all that's important are the few sentences we choose to put in the article, and the sources we choose to use. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) What sources are you choosing, Truthkeeper88? Got WP:RS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywriter (talk • contribs)

Skywriter, fwiw I'm currently unable to edit, or really to read much. As far as this article is concerned, I've gotten as far as the Reformation. Before you cast aspersions have a look at the sandbox on my page devoted to this article and decide for yourself whether I'm using reliable sources. Let's please focus on the edits and not the editors. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking Richard's proposed text and amending it to reflect my 3 main objections gives us:

Starting in the 1980s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the focus of media attention and public debate in the United States, Ireland, Australia and several other countries. Many of the alleged abuses dated back to the 1950s. Some bishops were severely criticized for their handling of reported abuse by shielding accused priests and transferring them to other pastoral assignments where a number continued to commit sexual offenses. However, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling of the type provided. As a result of the controversy, a number of bishops resigned and some dioceses sought bankruptcy protection. In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively. Xandar 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have my reservations about the "psychological treatment" text but I can live with it. Can we agree to insert Xandar's text without "inscribing it in stone"? I want to leave open the possibility that further discussions may modify the text and I don't want there to be a claim that this text has been "blessed by consensus". However, I think this text is superior to what we have now so let's just put it in there and we can continue to discuss improvements if there is a desire to do so. --Richard S (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this sentence: However, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling of the type provided. ruins the flow of what otherwise is a nice summary. Ideally the sentence can be removed; otherwise needs tweak. I like the rest. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine, but it will probably need a lot more references since right now it only has two. Definitly the line that says "Many of the abuses date back to the 50's" is going to need referenced. Also some of the "somes" are probably going to get "who" tags associated with them. Marauder40 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am inserting Xandar's version into the article. If there are still concerns about our treatment of the topic, let's start from here. --Richard S (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally OK with Harmakheru/Richard S's version but very much against Xandar reinserting the 'psychological treatment' defence. The word 'However' makes it clear that the fact that some psychologists in the 50s/60s thought paedophiles could be dealt with through counselling is being presented as an answer to the charge that the Church did not inform the civil authorities of the criminal activities taking place within its ranks and thus facilitated the further commission of offences against children by its priests. Haldraper (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Haldraper. I just figured it was better to have Xandar's version than the one-line content-free sentence that was in the article prior to my edit. I think we've reached an impasse here though and I think we need to move towards an RFC as the next step in dispute resolution. --Richard S (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, it seems that the obvious answer is to go to the scholarly sources and see what they say, but I don't have the time or energy to focus on this piece of the article yet, and no one else is willing. We can argue every day for three years and get nowhere if we're pitting one editor's POV against another editor's POV without a good solid understanding of what scholarly consensus is on the issue. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be too early for there to be a "scholarly consensus". Achieving that may take decades. However, it's clear that there have been various explanations offered to deflect or rebut the allegations of cover-up. The question here is not whether those explanations are valid or not (clearly there will be opinions on both sides of that question.) The question is whether or not we must present the various explanations in this particular article which is not about the sexual abuse scandal but about the Catholic Church. --Richard S (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In the least the paragraph should have sources, I think. Sorry, but not able to help at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with the wording of this paragraph as it stands right now:

1. "United States, Ireland, Australia and other countries" panders to an earlier Vatican/apologetic talking point that the abuse was primarily an Anglophone problem. We now know this is not the case. It also tends to minimize the seriousness of the problem; "other countries" could mean only two, leading to a grand total of five "problem countries". The problem is, in fact, much wider than that, and has now been shown to be worldwide.
2. "Many of the alleged abuses dated back to the 1950s." This panders to two more talking points: (1) that the abuses were only "alleged", when in fact thousands of accusations are admitted by the Church itself to have been legitimate, and (2) that the whole thing is "old news" dating back decades and really isn't a big deal anymore except that Church-hating media and vengeful "alleged" victims refuse to get over it and move on.
3. "Some bishops were severely criticized for their handling of reported abuse ..." This panders to another talking point: that the abuse crisis really only involves a few bishops in a handful of dioceses. In fact the Church's own self-study found that two-thirds of American dioceses were implicated in protecting abusers and giving them a "fresh start" where they could abuse again; subsequent revelations have shown that this was also standard practice in many other countries and was in fact Vatican-directed policy.
4. "As a result of the controversy, a number of bishops resigned" ... and a number of others were promoted to the Vatican where they were given powerful positions in the Curia. Most guilty bishops simply held on to their jobs until retirement, and not one of them has been seriously disciplined or even publicly rebuked by the Vatican, even when their behavior was demonstrably criminal.
5. "In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively." This is pure propaganda. In fact the Church established these sorts of formal procedures only in the United States, and the Vatican watered down even the inadequate procedures which were requested by the U.S. bishops. Even those procedures have often been ignored or subverted by diocesan bishops with no repercussions from Rome; they have not been extended en masse to other countries with the same rigor, if at all; there is still no absolute requirement that criminal priests be turned over to the secular authorities for prosecution, and no consequences for bishops who fail to do so; and those in the Vatican who by their own admission opposed secular accountability for clerical crimes still hold some of the most powerful positions in the Curia.

In short, almost the entirety of this paragraph could have been written by a Vatican public-relations officer or a Catholic League apologist. Harmakheru ✍ 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ouch... ok, let's take these one by one...

1. Granted, there are other countries involved besides just those three. However, it's not clear to me if the scope and nature are the same in all countries. How do we improve this sentence? If we just say "countries around the world" without mentioning the U.S., Ireland and Australia, then we fail to inform the reader as to the countries where the scandal has received the most attention and (AFAIK) has been the most serious.
2. "Some of the alleged abuses dated back to the 50s." - Yeh, I had some problems with that locution myself. So, the general argument is that the number of abuses was relatively low in the 1950s, peaked in the 60s and 70s and had actually declined in the 80s. I expect the numbers are even lower in subsequent decades. Presumably this is due to increased awareness. However, I readily admit that I have not seen any numbers regarding the prevalence of abuse over the last two decades. The question is "How do we provide a description of the time frame that we are talking about?" Although some abuses and coverup may still be occurring, the claim is that the primary issues have been addressed (in a nutshell, abuses occurred in the 50s-80s and steps taken in the last decade have addressed the prevention, reporting and handling of further abuse cases.)
3. "Some bishops were severely criticized" - If you have a source that documents the "two thirds of American dioceses" assertion, we could look for a way to get the text to present that information (as concisely as possible, please).
4. "a number of bishops resigned" - your point is well-taken, the resignations and retirements seem to have been more about bowing to public pressure than the result of a real censure or punishment. Is there a source that makes this assertion?
5. "established formal procedures..." - OK, forgive my U.S.-centrism. I know that Canada and the U.S. have instituted procedures. I find it hard to believe that similar measures have not been instituted in Ireland and Australia but this is speculation on my part. Is there a source that makes this assertion?

It may take a while to come up with text that all editors can accede to but let's take the first step towards that goal.

--Richard S (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the scope varies from country to country, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The claim is that sexual abuse of children "became the focus of media attention and public debate"; that statement is true of a whole bunch of countries, and more keep being added. That allows us to say "in a number of countries around the world, most notably ..." and then a list of the biggest ones. If people want to know more specifics, they can look it up in the other articles.

The "general argument" about timing of abuse cases is more apologetics than anything else, motivated by a desire on the part of conservative Catholics to pin the blame on the "spirit of Vatican II" and the sexual revolution. I know of no solid evidence that abuse has declined since the 70s or 80s; given that it often takes decades for victims to come to terms with their abuse sufficiently to confront their abusers, we won't be hearing from most current abuse victims until some time around 2025 or later. Some of the Irish victims didn't come forward until they were in their sixties or seventies.

The claim that the primary issues have been addressed is hogwash. The coverup continues, abusive priests continue to be moved around and protected, bishops continue to stonewall and maneuver and play legal and political hardball with victims, and the Vatican continues to let them get away with it. Whether or not the new norms have any teeth depends on the willingness of the local bishop to implement them sincerely and effectively; if he chooses not to, or plays favorites about who gets the ax and who gets a pass, there is no recourse to be had, and the Vatican is singularly uninterested in policing any of this.

The "two-thirds of American dioceses" statistic is from the John Jay study, if I recall correctly. In any case it's cited sufficiently often in the literature that it shouldn't be hard to track down.

As for coming up with text that all editors can accede to, you may as well just let Xandar write it because that's what you'll end up with in the end anyway. He continues to exercise a veto over the content of this page, especially when it comes to airing the Church's dirty linen in public, and until that changes I consider it pointless to try to move forward on these topics. No source is acceptable to him unless it says what he wants it to say, which is that even if "mistakes were made" they weren't made by the Church. Skywriter and I have both provided a host of sources on this subject which tell a very different story, and with a great deal more credibility; but all of them have been summarily dismissed by Xandar and the other true believers as unworthy of serious consideration, and I don't see any reason to think that's going to change. Harmakheru ✍ 00:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Media handling of the scandals

The proposed paragraph does not include important points about the media handling of the scandals. See [44] This is a journalist reporting on how the media screwed up in its reporting of the scandals by portraying the Church scandals to be worse than they were. NPOV might require some mention of this if you are going to go into so much detail on this subject in this article. 65.97.135.45 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Without trying to assert that the media is blameless in its coverage of the scandal, it should be pointed out that the article in question is published by the Catholic News Agency, a clearly biased source. Moreover, one should be aware that O'Neill commits his own legerdemain with the numbers.

The following statistics come from the John Jay report which was commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and tabulated the results of data reported by the dioceses. This is the URL for the report: http://usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/ In most cases, the figures provided below can be found in the Executive Summary.

Despite O'Neill's assertion to the contrary, there were, in fact, 10667 individuals in the United States who made allegations of sexual abuse that were reported to Catholic dioceses and subsequently tabulated by the John Jay task force. Since some of the priests were alleged to have been "serial abusers", there were "only" 4392 priests that were the target of the allegations.

Catholic dioceses investigated 6,696 cases, or 72% of the 10667 allegations.

Of the alleged incidents investigated by the dioceses and religious communities, a definitive result of the investigation was reported for 5,681 cases.

Of the 5681 cases for which there were definitive results, 4,570,or 80%, were substantiated; 1,028, or 18%, were unsubstantiated; 83, or 1.5%, were found to be false. Priests were reported to deny the allegations in 56 cases.

NB: only 1.5% of the 5681 cases were found to be definitely false. 18% could not be substantiated. That is, they were neither clearly true nor clearly false.

Of the 4570 substantiated allegations, only 1021 priests were reported to the police. The police found almost all of the 1021 allegations worth investigating although only 384 were charged and 252 were convicted. However, before we make too much of the "only" 252 convictions, we need to take into account the fact that a decision not to prosecute due to "insufficient evidence" does not equate to "innocence". Also, "not convicted" does not mean "innocent". It just means "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In the United States, juries do not have the option of returning a "not proven" verdict. Also, some of those who were not convicted may have chosen to plea bargain.

In summary, the article offered up as evidence of the "media screwing up" has to be taken with a large grain of salt.

--Richard S (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Persecutions of Catholics missing from article

This Wikipedia article does not mention the many ways in which Catholic Churches and people are persecuted. There are many Catholic schools and churches in Africa and India that are terrorized by Muslim mobs. This is the most recent [45] article from Asianews.

These schools are missionary schools paid for by Catholics from rich countries. They provide an education to children in countries where there is no other alternative education for them. India did not educate their "untouchables" and poor citizens, the Catholic Church initiated this. Currently, a sizable portion of India's school system consists of Catholic schools - paid for by Catholics in rich countries.

Muslim countries, especially Iraq, have lately been bombing Catholic Churches killing a lot of people just because they are not Muslim. In other Muslim countries the Church can not even build a worship space. One of the major news magazines did an article on Saudi Arabia and highlighted this repression.

This Wikipedia article tells us nothing about how the Church is treated in the world and nothing about the many good things it does. I think it is incomplete without some mention of these issues. 65.97.135.45 (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is not to provide up-to-date news coverage, or a point-of-view. The purpose of the article is to provide on overview of a 2000 year-old institution. The best method to do so is to turn to scholarship, of which there is plenty. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The proper place for the topics that you wish to cover is the article on Anti-Catholicism. Unfortunately, that article has a tendency to become a coatrack and I fear that you will only push it further in that direction. As far as this article is concerned, it is hard to see how to summarize Anti-Catholicism into a short overview that would fit well into the rest of the article text. You are welcome to try but please be forewarned that many of the details that you catalog above belong in the Anti-Catholicism article and not in this one. --Richard S (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Canon law prevented laicization of abusive priests?

Please take a look at the following entry at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases and help with any information you might have about this. Thanx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Canon_law_prevented_laicization_of_abusive_priests.3F --Richard S (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Business as usual

The claim has been made that the Catholic Church has "addressed" the sex abuse issue and put it to rest with new norms and procedures to protect children, blah, blah, blah.

Here's a test case, from the Diocese of Joliet in Illinois. [46]

Spring 2009: Church officials discover gay porn on the computer of Alejandro Flores, a candidate for the priesthood in the Diocese of Joliet; some of the images "appeared to be those of young boys". Instead of being reported to the police or removed from candidacy, "Flores was ordered to see a psychologist and ... told not to be alone with a child."

June 2009: Despite clear evidence that Flores was unsuitable for the priesthood and a potential danger to children, he is ordained a priest by Bishop J. Peter Sartain of Joliet.

Fall 2009: Flores is accused of sexually abusing a child. Flores is eventually charged with "16 felonies, including predatory sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, indecent solicitation of a child and attempted aggravated sexual abuse" over a period of five years from 2005 through 2009.

September 8, 2010: Flores pleads guilty to a single charge and receives a sentence of four years. Bishop Sartain offers his "deepest apologies to these young boys and their family for the suffering they are experiencing as a result of this abuse".

September 16, 2010: Pope Benedict appoints Sartain to be the new archbishop of Seattle.

Business as usual. Harmakheru ✍ 15:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be a page for discussing improvements to this article, not a soapbox for Church bashing.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The article presently says: "In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively." Earlier on this page, I criticized this text as follows: "This is pure propaganda. In fact the Church established these sorts of formal procedures only in the United States, and the Vatican watered down even the inadequate procedures which were requested by the U.S. bishops. Even those procedures have often been ignored or subverted by diocesan bishops with no repercussions from Rome; they have not been extended en masse to other countries with the same rigor, if at all; there is still no absolute requirement that criminal priests be turned over to the secular authorities for prosecution, and no consequences for bishops who fail to do so ..."

In his reply to my critique, Richard wrote: "Although some abuses and coverup may still be occurring, the claim is that the primary issues have been addressed (in a nutshell, abuses occurred in the 50s-80s and steps taken in the last decade have addressed the prevention, reporting and handling of further abuse cases."

The Joliet case is a good example of why that claim, or at least its intended implication, is false. Here we have a priest candidate who was caught with gay porn on his computer--porn that may also have constituted child pornography. The former is a violation of chastity and clerical celibacy; the latter is a felony in the United States and a known "gateway crime" to actual sexual abuse of children. Under the new norms which are supposed to protect children from clerical abusers, either one should have been sufficient to keep him out of the priesthood, and the possession of apparent child pornography should have been reported to the police. Neither happened; instead he was sent for psychological counseling, and then the bishop ordained him despite his record and proclivities. And then, despite this colossal screw-up, the bishop gets a promotion to a larger and more prestigious diocese--which is a good example of what I said above about there being "no repercussions from Rome" for bishops who ignore or subvert the supposedly rigorous norms for the protection of children.

To point all this out is not "Church bashing" in any case, it is simply telling the truth. And it is in fact "discussing improvements to the article"--namely, why the claim made in the article is at best disingenuous, and at worst flatly dishonest. Harmakheru ✍ 18:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, old friend, but using one example out of thousands of cases does not change anything, you should know better. Do you really think in an organization of this size that one person can know every action of every person under him? If you don't want to be perceived as being disingenuous or as a Church basher, maybe you should curtail the snakiness or the sarcasm in your opening sentence. It is a shame because you were always one of the more scholarly editors on here who actually made some real improvements to this piece.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this "one example" is symptomatic of many others, some far worse; it's just one of the most recent and easily described. Go read the SNAP or Bishop Accountability sites and you will see case after case after case like this one, where the supposedly "rigorous" norms are being ignored, criminal priests are still protected, and complicit bishops not only don't get punished or reprimanded, but get a promotion out of the deal. And of course anyone who knows how bishops get named also knows that episcopal ordinations and assignments are not the decision of "one person" alone; there are lots of people involved in the vetting process, both in the U.S. and in Rome, including other regional and national bishops, the papal nuncio, and curial commissions, all of whom either forward nominees, advise on the suitability of those nominated, or have to sign off on the final recommendation before the pope confirms it. It is beyond belief that in case after case bishops are being appointed without any of these people ever once becoming aware of the problems with their record, especially when those problems are a matter of public knowledge and controversy. The only reasonable conclusion is that the ecclesiastical hierarchy knows all too well about such problems, and simply doesn't consider them important enough to take into consideration.

As for the "sna[r]kiness and sarcasm" in my opening sentence, I notice that this only gets criticized when it is employed against the Church and its defenders. The latter are allowed to be as snarky, sarcastic, insulting, and vicious as they please, and no one ever complains except the targets of their abuse. Why do you think that is? Harmakheru ✍ 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude I call it when I see it on both sides, so I don't know why you're asking me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, we all (or at least almost all) call it as we see it. But as the saying goes, what you see often depends very much on where you stand. Harmakheru ✍ 22:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's try to come to grips with the issue that Harmakheru has raised. The sentence in question is: "In response to the scandal, the Church established formal procedures to prevent abuse, to encourage reporting of any abuse that did occur and to handle such reports promptly and effectively."

There's really nothing objectionable with the sentence per se except perhaps that it would be more precise to say "some national conferences of bishops" instead of "Church" since there aren't (AFAIK) any "formal procedures" that have been promulgated by the Vatican with the exception of putting all sexual abuse allegations under the purview of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

The sentence does truthfully state the objectives of the procedures that were instituted by the USCCB among others. However, what Harmakheru is really objecting to is what is not said but implied which is that these procedures did, in fact, address the problem. Harmakheru provides an example which he argues shows that the procedures have not actually changed anything (hence, the section title "Business as usual"). The problem is that the sorry tale that he relates is anecdotal evidence. It's probably too early to be sure if the problem is mostly resolved or mostly unresolved. It will probably take a decade or more to be sure (and I'm sorry to say that, if the problem is not resolved, there will be many more victims in the ensuing years). The case of Archbishop Sartain is an example of what happens when the procedure breaks down.

The problem with Harmakheru's argument is that it is original research in its current form. What we need is a reliable source that explicitly makes the argument that the procedures established by the USCCB and other national conferences of bishops have failed to address the problem. I expect that Harmakheru could find such quotes from Sipe or Doyle. Armed with such quotes, I expect we could craft an additional sentence along the lines of "However, some critics charge that the procedures have not adequately addressed the underlying problem and are more palliatives than cures." Something like that. Let's see what quotes Harmakheru can come up with to back up his argument.

--Richard S (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

SNAP certainly qualifies as "critics". Here's something of theirs from last year in an article on Archbishop Dolan of New York:

"Sadly the Vatican has consistently shown that a bishop’s mismanagement of clergy sex crimes against children has little or no bearing on career advancement. When Dolan came to Milwaukee in 2002 from St. Louis he was widely praised as an antidote to Catholicism’s penchant for dour and humorless prelates, a wizard of media relations, the embodiment of a new, ascendant and conquering retro-Catholicism. But like so many other bishops who mismanage the abuse issue but still manage to get promoted, Dolan left St. Louis having failed to properly supervise sex offenders, remove them all from ministry, and fully notify civil authorities. When Dolan got to Milwaukee, he boldly proclaimed that "it is sledgehammer obvious that things cannot go on with business as usual" in handling clergy sex abuse cases. Yet, for six years it has been pretty much exactly that in Milwaukee, just like in St. Louis. Dolan did not forward to Wisconsin police direct admissions of guilt from clergy child rapists, even from clergy who were subsequently criminally charged and convicted. He continues to leave known clerical offenders working or presenting themselves as clergy in good standing in the Milwaukee archdiocese, a direct violation of the Dallas Charter. And for six years, secure at their chancery posts are virtually every single member of the senior management who plotted and executed the cover up of child sex abuse under Dolan’s disgraced predecessor, Rembert Weakland. ... [O]n matters of child protection Dolan is the Vatican’s standard "business as usual" fare. ... The problem, ultimately, is not any one cardinal or bishop--Dolan or Weakland, Egan or Sklba, Mahony or Law--but a system that moves around predator sheltering bishops as freely as it moves around its predators." [47]

And Richard Sipe certainly qualifies as a subject-matter expert and "reliable source":

"American Bishops have implemented positive protective procedures in their hiring practices; they have instituted good educational initiatives. At the same time most have done everything possible to impede investigations, withhold documents and obstruct justice for the victims of sexual crimes by priests and themselves. They have used every method conceivable to avoid responsibility for crimes; some procedures are within legal limits and others questionable, unthinkable or indefensible, including intimidation, destruction of documents, evasion, deception, and obfuscation of the truth. All Grand Jury reports have come to conclusions remarkably similar with the Rockville New York report: 'the grand jury does not believe that the diocese ... has the demonstrated capability to properly handle the issues of clergy sexual abuse.' And further, 'the conduct of certain Diocesan officials would have warranted criminal prosecution but for the fact that the existing statutes are inadequate.' Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State rendered the opinion that the Church "faced this trial with great dignity and courage" and he hoped, "other institutions and social agencies will face this same problem with their members, with an equal degree of courage and realism as the Catholic Church has done." ... This statement was a public relations illusion that does not take the American Catholic reality into account. ... Despite repeated promises of action the bishops have not instituted significant reform of the clerical system or installed effective oversight of clerical sexual offenders. ... The Catholic Church is not struggling effectively against a systemic cancer that is eating at it from the inside." [48]

Harmakheru ✍ 15:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There are questions regarding the grand jury report's statement. "the diocese [does not have] the demonstrated capability to properly handle the isssues of clergy sexual abuse." One is about the use of the word "demonstrated" - it is all put impossible to say conclusively that a system just recently put into place and not yet used can be "demonstrated" to be effective. I still myself think that there are serious questions regarding systemic bias regarding the abuse section. Several other parts of the world, so far as I know anyway, have not filed that many such complaints; almost all the complaints I've heard have come from the developed English speaking world or Europe. If that is true, then we might be overemphasizing regional concerns in a global article.

However, it is (I think) probably true that the majority of the money used for the operations of the Catholic Church come from such areas as well, and I do remember that there were regularly news reports some years ago about how donations to the church dropped off after the abuses became public, because people didn't want their money to go to these matters. I don't remember how much effect they may have had, but I do think that if there are sources which indicate that this may have had a significant impact on the global church, that would be potentially significant enough globally to merit discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So harmakheru is back, recycling opinion pieces from rabidly anti-Catholic websites, and selectively quoting anecdotal articles. No help to this article at all. Actually the Catholic Church has been more open than practically any other body about abuse. What other bodies have done the sort of nationwide surveys on abuse (from which most of the big headline numbers the media so-readily quote, have come)? I think the harping on, exaggerating, and endlessly criticising Catholic abuse, but not abuse elsewhere, tells us more about the attitudes of those who keep this up than anything else. Xandar 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the article on the Catholic church, not that of any other institution. Let's keep that in mind, and, preferably, everyone stop debating the topic and instead discuss the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

tags added

The lead needs to be rewritten to comply with this and the content clearly needs some expert attention. It actually needs to be completely rewritten with reliable sources and in a neutral pov so the reader can understand the Church.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what we are attempting to do, beginning with the history section. Would you be willing to check out a few scholarly sources for the other sections and start reading? There's a start of a suggested reading list at the top of this page; additions to that are also very welcome. We need more editors who are interested in fixing up the article with reliable sources.... Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have many reliable sources. I was just about to check to see if this article is being considered for the Wiki 1.0 project. It can't be let out in this condition.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs and I are trying to work on the article, but really, in my view editors need to step up instead of complaining, and start reading and helping. Sorry to be blunt, but that's my feeling at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the present shape of the article is decidedly inferior to what it was when it went through its last peer review here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=243051431. I propose replacing the current article with that one as it had much more input from knowledgable editors and was classified as a Good Article. I do not see where the current effort has done anything to improve the article but I do see how it has gotten progressivly worse. NancyHeise ^talk 00:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, as a bit of a biased party involved, being a Catholic myself, and as someone who thinks, as he witlessly keeps repeating, that the sex abuse content might get more weight than a worldwide, not-just-English-&-European view might indicate, I could see maybe doing that, while adding some links to the talk page here showing what the "overwritten" draft said, as a bit of a springboard to future development. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to think that some people who are Catholic can come to this page and contribute stuff just because its a fact that reputable university history books and encyclopedias include, not because its "biased". NancyHeise ^talk 00:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Article class

User:Afterwriting has reverted my rerating of the article to "Start" class for its projects. I have said before here that "B" was probably untenable in the current state of the article, and seeing what has become of the lead section recently this is now clearly the case. Apart from the history and doctrine sections, the other parts of the article are, apart from anything else, much too short to be anything but "start" for a subject this size, and, as people are constantly complaining, many important aspects of the church are simply not mentioned. I'm happy to see what others think, especially those not involved in recent editing, but a start rating seems inevitable at present. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with either Start or C class. I agree that the article is not in B-class status. I think the ratings are fairly insignificant, th ough, and would hate to see this balloon into a big argument. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think C would be better. It is evident that this isn't a start of the article and IMHO it doesn't meet B class so C seems to be the best fit. Marauder40 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the current state of the lead, I agree with Johnbod. Also agree with Karanacs that the rating is not worth a long talkpage discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be more than obvious that the article doesn't deserve a "start" rating regardless of anyone's POV about the quality of the lead section. I also strongly object to any editor changing the rating in this way without first bringing it to discussion in an attempt at consensus. I appreciate that this is now happening. Afterwriting (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ratings are normally done this way, and not by editors involved in the writing of the article. It is not a matter of POV on the lead, but WP:LEAD and WP:MOS - the lead currently has two one sentence paragraphs, and not even long sentences. I have posted to the two projects involved, and with luck we will have some uninvolved comments, which in this matter carry more weight than the views of the editors active on the page. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No reservations from me regarding altering the assessments to C-Class. The only point I might make is that the 1.0 team uses their assessments a bit more than other projects do, in part as one of the criteria for selection. On that basis, as someone who has changed one basically single-sourced article to Start-class, only to have it changed back to B-class by a member of that group, I think that rating should stay the same. The article in question, as I recall, was an Oceanian state or territory, and the single source was the US State Department's country guide. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

After looking over the article, I'd say 'start' class. I'm surprised to see it in this condition. It needs to become a priority for WikiProject Catholicism.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, as this is finely balanced between start & C, I'll follow JC's suggestion & go start for Christianity & C for V 0.5. It is clearly not the same article the V 0.5 team reviewed way back when, & if they want to change it back ..... Thanks for the comments. With the article attracting over 200,000 hits per month, I hope improvement will come soon. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting from scratch

We should open a subpage and rewrite from scratch.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We have been doing that. Help is welcome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, subpages are verboten in article mainspace. You are welcome to create a subpage in your user space (e.g. User:Malke 2010/Catholic Church or in Wikipedia project space (e.g. WP:Catholic Church/sandbox).

However, I would strongly discourage you from going down this path unless your vision for this article involves a radical restructuring of the outline structure. As Truthkeeper 88 pointed out, we have already started a rewrite of this article from a previous version that was considered unacceptably long and irretrievably POV (well, it was only irretrievably so because a small group of editors were sitting on it and refusing to let it be changed).

I understand that there are problems with this article but I really think any attempt to restart from scratch will just lead to a huge distraction, much discussion and little progress.

To give you a sense of what I am concerned about, please look at this RFC. That RFC considered three separate versions of this article. We picked the radically truncated version created by User:UberCryxic. I think we need to move forward from here rather than starting over again. However, feel free to mine the other versions for important content that was lost during the radical truncation.

Finally, if you really think that rewriting from a blank sheet of (digital) paper would be helpful, go ahead. Just don't be frustrated if we wind up lifting sections from your work rather than adopting the entire rewritten article.

--Richard S (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Truthkeeper and I have been taking this sub-section by sub-section (starting with history, because that had the most complaints of POV before, and, well, that's what we're interested in). We've both got a lot of notes posted in our userspaces, and then we present draft proposals of a subsection here, hash it out, and if we reach consensus stick it in the article. As we run across other books that we think would be useful in other sections of the article, we stick that information in the section at the top of the page. If you want to operate in the same way, I'll be happy to craft real prose out of any notes you take. I don't think it is a problem to rewrite whole sections, but rewriting the whole article from scratch at once would be...impossible to do well. Karanacs (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As time permits (ha ha ha ha - stops before total loss of sanity becomes permanent) I can try to scrounge up some sources (generally encyclopedia articles) from non-Catholic encyclopedias and the like, to help maybe give some indication of what other groups think is important and emphasize. It might be a few weeks at least before I get to that however. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've just arrived, I don't want to intrude on any works in progress. But my suggestion would be start with a plan of the overall structure. I'd be happy to come up with an outline or Table of Contents. You know, really when you're building a house you put up the frame first. Then each person could perhaps look at a section that interest them. If Karanacs likes the history, she should do that, and so on. What do you think?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem with Wikipedia editing is that it is a volunteer activity that often has to take a backseat to "real life", as annoying as such intrusions may be in this most excellent of pastimes. Work on this article ground to a crawl over the summer. Truthkeeper88 and Karanacs have been working on the History section. I think they are done with early Christianity and late antiquity and might be somewhere in the medieval period. I don't know of anyone that is working on the "Beliefs and Practices" section. As Karanacs said, most of the POV concerns were in the History section (and the "Cultural influences" section as well). Still, someone needs to review the "Beliefs and Practices" section for completeness. --Richard S (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, where is the subpage (or rather, where you keep your notes) you are all working on?Malke 2010 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 has his sandbox here and Karanacs has hers here. --Richard S (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Malke as you will see from the sandboxes, a substantial amount of reading and notetaking has been done. Distilling the 2000 year history into a few thousand words is a difficult task, and as Richard notes, this is a volunteer activitiy. I've had real-life interruptions that have prevented me from reading and editing much in the past few months, and I'm in the final stages of finishing another article. I intend to return to this as soon as I possibly can - hopefully in a few weeks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have those same real life concerns. I will leave the history to the others. I have quite a bit of knowledge of beliefs and practices, so I will look that over. Here is the article when it was at GA status: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=243051431 which I'm sure you've all seen. I'm seeing it for the first time today. So I will look it over as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support using this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=243051431 to start over again because it is the version that resulted from the last peer review - one that had seen the input of many editors working amicably together for a common goal. I propose replacing the current article with that one as it had much more input from knowledgable editors and was classified as a Good Article. I do not see where the current effort has done anything to improve the article or encourage input from knowledgable editors. NancyHeise ^talk 00:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I would have to agree that would be a good starting point. If it's already at GA in this version that means the citations have been vetted, etc. And it seems to have a good structure, one that is like the inverted pyramid, so the reader learns the basics first, what the Church believes, how it practices, and then moves on from there.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it went through a GA review and demoted. Have you searched the talkpage to find that? Here it is [49] Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that over. Still and all, starting from this point might well be to our advantage over the extant version which is in a poor state at best.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It was delisted as a Good Article after the current crop of editors tossed the GA version in favor of the present version. Please see "Article Milestones" at the top of this discussion page for evidence of this. If you click on the date to the left of each milestone you will see what the article looked like when it reached that milestone. The most advanced stage of the article was in October 2008 after it had been re-reviewed for Good Article and its Good Article Status was "Kept" and then it was "Peer Reviewed". This is the version I propose we use to begin again. I posted it just above but will do so again see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&oldid=243051431 NancyHeise ^talk 01:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks to be the same as the one I posted, correct?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I stopped counting a forty watching the little circle spin in the window. The problem is not that we don't want a particular version of the article, the problem is that the article must be able to load. I'm currently working on new and fast computer and cannot load the article. Better to rework and get it right than the pull back to a version that can't be loaded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult. This might be due to the photos. They can be adjusted in quality. I've also replied to you directly above.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I made a shortened version of the Good Article just for you. I have it posted on my userpage. By eliminating many of the pictures - which are the main problem with load time - and by condensing much of the content- I was able to decrease load time and keep the article accurate as well. Right now you have a history article that tells us nothing about what the Church does or believes. NancyHeise ^talk 01:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the version I made for you [50] - takes a second to load. I would be fine with using this version as well since it incorporated the comments of the last FAC.NancyHeise ^talk 01:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The load time is better, but it's filled with MoS problems, overcitations, overlinking, etc. Most of that has been eliminated from this version in anticipation of building a newer and better article. In-text templates cause load problems more than images. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, loads much better.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the MOS problems, etc., that can be fixed. Overlinking is easy to reduce as are the over citations. It just takes some focused effort on the part of one editor, and then another to come along and tweak. I'm still amazed that this article made it to GA and is now virtually at 'start class.' Malke 2010 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It takes hours to fix the MoS issues. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What sort of MoS issues?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just read Nancy's version again. It's been a long time since I looked at it and it was a bit of a shock how much of an advocacy piece for the Church and how POV-laden and strewn with weaselly words it is. The idea that it is superior to the current version or a suitable starting point for rewriting the page from scratch is a joke, yes? Haldraper (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's not rehash the arguments again...the RfC was very clear that we would not work from the older versions of the article, but would start with the stripped down version, as a result of many, many issues (including serious citation problems which I spent hours fixing in the current version of the article). Malke, it would be great if you could look at the beliefs and practices areas of the article. One thing we have to be very careful of is jargon - the previous version was inaccessible to a lot of people who were unfamiliar with Catholic practices and beliefs. Karanacs (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start work on that section.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The beliefs and practices section (along with organisation, and cultural influences) was one of those most decimated in the "shortening" of several months ago. Full sections on these topics are required for a good comprehensive article, so restoration is needed. I would have done more work on this myself, but rather than re-invent the wheel, I would have based such sections on the removed content - which many did not like, and said could be improved. It's good to see Malke come forward to try and produce an improved and more comprehensive beliefs section for us to work with. Xandar 22:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xander, could you please find these sections and post them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malke_2010/Catholic_Church I'd appreciate having a starting point. I've been working on an outline.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is there a specific policy or wiki article that addresses the style to be used when referring to Catholics and Catholic views/beliefs within the body of articles? I see articles with either Catholic or Roman Catholic, and sometimes both in the same article, being used. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the TV show "Lost in Space". There was a robot that would detect an imminent threat to the young boy and announde "Warning, Will Robinson, danger!" (or something like that) in every episode.

In a similar fashion, I now want to warn you of imminent danger. This question of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" is a huge tarpit and the only thing I can say is that, no matter which is chosen, there will be no consensus to change it and no consensus to keep it.

Any consensus for the status quo is one of fatigue and frustration, not one that has the active support of an overwhelming majority (which is what a true consensus would have).

The current trend is towards changing most articles to use "Catholic" rather than "Roman Catholic" except in cases where "Roman Catholic" is needed to make a clear distinction from (for instance) the Eastern Catholic Church. However, even here, there are those who would argue that the entire church is just as often called the "Roman Catholic Church" as the "Catholic Church" and that the true distinction is between Latin Rite churches and other churches within the Roman Catholic Church. (If you want a more erudite exposition of this, see the article titled "Roman Catholic (term)".

On the other hand, there are Anglican Wikipedians who make a big deal out of the fact that the Anglican Church is also "catholic" and that therefore using the phrase "Catholic Church" is POV. Some Orthodox Wikipedians will make a similar argument.

My advice to you is to just steer clear of this question as we have gone over this endlessly (like for several months at a time) several times over the last few years. And that's just since I started here in 2004! There were similar discussions even earlier than that.

--Richard S (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I was really just looking for a Wikipedia MoS thing. Lost in Space was on Nickelodean/TV Land/Nick at Night.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, OK, you've now betrayed the tenderness of your years. The correct answer is that "Lost in Space was broadcast on CBS". Of course, that was back in the old days when there were only three networks, most families had TVs that had only two colors (black and white) and we all had to ride dinosaurs to get to school. --Richard S (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess I wasn't clear. The problem is that WP:MOS doesn't get that specific. It just provides a bunch of general rules to be applied to specific cases. What I was trying to say is that there is absolutely no consensus as to how to apply the Wikipedia rules of WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, etc. to the question of "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church". If you really have the intestinal fortitude for it, I can point you at the specific Talk Page archives where this sort of thing has been debated. I really don't think you would want to go there but masochism does seem to be prevalent among Wikipedians so, if you insist, I'll introduce you to this most sublime form of self-abuse. --Richard S (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the dinosaurs. When my twin brothers went to kindergarten they complained about the smell of the exhaust on their school bus. And my mother said, "Yes, I never cared for the school bus either," to which one brother said, "Buses!!?? They had buses when you were little?"

I think I wasn't clear earlier. I'm not looking for a debate between what non-Catholics want to call the Catholic Church versus what Catholics want to call the Catholic Church. I've no such interest. I wanted to know, without having to search for an answer, if Wiki had an MoS convention about it. If I were to write an article, I'd use Catholic Church. But if I were to edit an article where the distinction was a necessary convention, then I'd follow that.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We did try to develop a convention about which articles should use "Catholic Church" and which would be better using "Roman Catholic", I think we got pretty close to agreement. You can see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_5#Rationalizing_the_use_of_.22Catholic.22_vs._.22Roman_Catholic.22_in_article_titles This was never put into practice, however, probably because there are so many articles (every single diocese article for example), and certain articles have people with strong views standing guard on them. Xandar 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, your memory is better than mine since I was the one who made the proposal that you linked to but had forgotten about it when I replied to Malke 2010 above. My takeaway from that discussion over a year ago was that there were enough people objecting to my proposal that I felt it wasn't worth continuing to advocate for it.

Does anybody object to the original [[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_5#Rationalizing_the_use_of_.22Catholic.22_vs._.22Roman_Catholic.22_in_article_titles]] proposal]? NB: Note that the proposal addresses only article titles and NOT article content. Some of the objections raised a year ago were about the possibility of creating erroneous article content by changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" in inappropriate places. My proposal could not do that because it does not envision the modification of article content. However, some of the other objections to the proposal might be valid insofar as they relate to article titles. --Richard S (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead

I think Haldraper's reduction of the lead to practically nothing of substance is not a good idea, but I also think it is not worth my while to intervene further. Esoglou (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that we're working to rewrite it. Any contributions from you would be most appreciated. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not ideal. But neither do I think the lead is the place to distinguish Church and Papal infallibity or get into a discussion about apostolic succession which leads to tortuous, jargon-loaded sentences that mean nothing to a general reader. Haldraper (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to be a good overview of the article, and it currently needs lots of work. Any suggestions? Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine to leave the lead stubby until we know the final shape of the article - then tackle rewriting the lead. I'd also very much like to see the tags gone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead now shouldn't be perfect, but what we currently have is really....ugh. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Very icky! How about pulling out from the old lead - and losing the tags? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with re-instating this lead? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad lead. It has a few problems, like being only two paragraphs long, when I think for an article as complex as this five is probably a good idea, but that is another point entirely, and could be addressed later. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a very bad lead, if only because it's clearly far too short, but much better than what we have now. Go back to it. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I was trying to look at the positive side, such as there is one, but it is an improvement anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put it in. It's a bad lead, but better than a puny lead. We can build on this, I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the lead that, I think, tune it up a bit and also take into account Haldraper's suggestions about the Marian doctrines by framing them within a larger context of Catholic distinctives. It seems obvious to me that one of the things the average reader is going to come to the article for is some idea of what makes Roman Catholicism different from other forms of Christianity, so we should at least mention these in the lead (with links to more detailed articles) and then flesh them out in the section on doctrine. Harmakheru ✍ 20:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am all in favor of being concise, but precision is also important. The statement in the lead regarding development of doctrine and infallibility has been cut down to the point where it is simply wrong. As it now stands, it asserts that the Church teaches that "its doctrines, developed through papal encyclicals and ecumenical councils, have been defined infallibly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit". But in fact the Church's doctrines have developed through a great many more mechanisms than just encyclicals and councils, and many (perhaps most) of its teachings are not officially claimed to be infallible. Harmakheru ✍ 23:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

BVM in the introduction?

I have now twice reverted the recent addition of Halraper's text about the Virgin Mary in the introduction as I can see no obvious or compelling reason why this information should merit inclusion at this point in the article - regardless of how "distinctive" Haldraper believes it to be. Before reverting me again, Haldraper, I would like to hear more of your reasoning for this information at this point and also open this issue up for further discussion and consensus by others. (unsigned)

I don't think it belongs, especially in such a short lead. The broad emphasis on Mary may be distinctive to the CC in an anglophone perspective but is shared by the Orthodox churches, with some theological differences. I don't think this was in the "old" much longer lead, was it? The text also relates intercession only to Mary, which is wrong, and the intercession of saints is a belief shared by all non-Protestant churches, including some Anglicans. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't paricularly want a fight over including the info in the lead but let's get one thing straight: the text did not state intercession was limited to Mary, indeed the piped link was to intercession of saints, but merely said the Hail Mary is an intecessory prayer to her.

Also, what Johnbod calls 'some theological differences' may apply to the Assumption but afaik the CC is the only Christian church to believe in the Immaculate Conception. Haldraper (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The text was "The Church holds the Blessed Virgin Mary in special regard. Catholic beliefs concerning Mary include her Immaculate Conception without the stain of original sin and bodily Assumption into heaven at the end of her life. The Catholic belief that her intercession may aid the souls of those in Purgatory is reflected in the prayer Hail Mary." I said "The text also relates intercession only to Mary, which is wrong,...". Please don't quibble. Both the Assumption & IC are indeed "theological differences" with EO churches, though I'm not sure how definitive their positions against these are. What's your point here? Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Haldraper, but I can see why someone might consider specific mention of Mary to be appropriate in the lead. Historically, one of the things that most clearly distinguishes Catholicism from other forms of western Christianity is its devotion to and hyperveneration of the Blessed Virgin, and this is still a point of contention between Catholics and Protestants to this day. It could be argued that leaving such an important aspect of the Catholic faith out of the lead is itself a form of apologetic coloring.

That aside, there is another problem with the lead as it stands--namely, its claim that the Catholic Church is "the oldest continuous Christian institution in the world". Given the historical uncertainties surrounding the founding and continuity of the Church of Rome in the first century, this claim would be hard to substantiate, and some eastern churches (notably the See of Antioch and the "St. Thomas Christians" of India) might well dispute it. Harmakheru ✍ 17:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And the Orthodox churches. That can certainly go - the issue has been gone into ad infinitum in the past. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm already working on a draft of the Beliefs and Practices section and of course it includes Mary and her titles. If there are reliable sources that support the CC claim as calling itself the oldest continuous Christian institution in the world, then it should stay.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As Johnbod says, this latter issue has been argued in these talk pages ad infinitum (and, I might add, ad nauseam). If there is anything close to a scholarly consensus on this point, it is that the claim is "not proved"; it cannot be definitively refuted, primarily because we have so little hard information either way, but neither is there sufficient evidence to state it as fact. Few would disagree that Roman Catholicism is "one of" the oldest continuous religious institutions in the west, but the claim that it is the "oldest" is quite another matter. I've changed the lead to reflect this. Harmakheru ✍ 20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking that the claim needed to be true, only that if the Church is making the claim, it would need to have been reported in RS in order to use it. Saying it's "one of" the oldest is fine with me. It doesn't make it any less the Catholic Church. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot think, with all the other information that exists about this subject and might be relevant for inclusion in the lead, that this one topic deserves much if any space in the lead. Yes, it is somewhat distinctive, but lots of other things are too; that doesn't mean they all get included in the lead, however. It probably does deserve a degree of attention in the article, but not in the lead. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, now that you mention it. Mary is important in Catholicism because her Immaculate Conception, God's choice of her for the vessel is noteworthy. But Christ is the divine one, the Church was founded by him, not Mary. She's the means, not the end. But I did mention her being blessed, etc. in the "Beliefs and Practices" section I'm working on. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

John, which "this subject" are you talking about? There are several being discussed in this section simultaneously. Harmakheru ✍ 23:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the subject of including mention of the BVM in the lead. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a respectable lead could not include the Virgin Mary, as well as at least a short list of other Catholic distinctives. If you look at the Wikipedia articles on, say, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the LDS Church, you will find in every case that they make a point of briefly articulating the beliefs and practices which distinguish them from other variants of Christianity. And this makes good sense, because one of the reasons people come to encyclopedia articles on various religions is to see how they differ from one another. Without that last sentence on Catholic distinctives, there is hardly anything left in the Catholic Church lead that could not be said of lots of other Christian Churches both historically and at present; and without mention of the Virgin Mary, any list of other Catholic distinctives would be grievously unbalanced. Harmakheru ✍ 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mary seems more important to non-Catholics, especially when it comes to the non-Catholic fascination, and misinterpretation of veneration. Mentioning Mary in the lead is fine, but it can't become a dominate theme of Catholicism, as if Mary is the central figure and not Christ.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with Malke above. Mention (probably brief) would be acceptable to everyone. However, several Catholics have no particular regard for Mary, and instead place emphasis on, for instance, the founder of the order which created their church, a patron saint (either of the church, city, country, whatever), or other saints/beati/whatever. We would not want to overstate the matter to give the impression that active veneration of Mary by Catholics is necessarily any more prevalent in Catholicism than it is in, say, Eastern Orthodoxy, without clear evidence to that effect, which I don't think I've seen yet. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some Catholics have "no particular regard" for Mary is not decisive; some Catholics have no particular regard for Jesus or the Pope, either, but that doesn't mean we should take Jesus and the Pope out of the lead. When deciding what is important to mention, we have two different things to consider: (1) What the Church officially teaches and the practices it officially encourages, and (2) what people who self-identify as Catholics actually believe and do. These two things are often not the same, and may even be diametrically opposed. In this particular case, however, the peculiar status of Mary in Catholicism is worthy of mention on both counts, since (1) the cultus of the Virgin is officially endorsed and encouraged by the highest authorities of the Magisterium, both past and present, and (2) that cultus has been powerful and pervasive in popular Catholic piety for more than a thousand years, and remains so today. The fact that this is also to some extent true in Eastern Orthodoxy is irrelevant to the point at hand, since the same could be said about almost everything else in the lead with the exception of purgatory and the papacy; if we were to remove from the lead everything that Catholicism has in common with Orthodoxy, not much would be left. Harmakheru ✍ 02:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's fewer than 900 years since Western Marianism really got going, before the 12th century it was much more strongly a feature of the Eastern church. Johnbod (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

But before the 12th century the Eastern church didn't think of itself as a separate Church from the Western church; they were all just Catholics, although admittedly with variant flavorings. Harmakheru ✍ 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The formal break was in 1054, but there had been increasingly little contact, and more hostility, between the churches since the 8th or 9th century. Like most histories of the Western/Catholic church, this article does not include the Eastern church in its scope after about the 6th century, or before. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, Mary is important to non-Catholics primarily because they have trouble understanding why she is so overwhelmingly (and, to their mind, inappropriately) important to so many Catholics; and it is not only non-Catholics who misunderstand the boundaries of permissible veneration, but many Catholics as well. As a matter of historical fact, for many Catholics throughout much of Catholic history Mary has been the central figure of their faith, whether she is "supposed" to be or not. Harmakheru ✍ 03:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Harmakheru, I can appreciate why you might believe that. A Jesuit once told our high school religion class that if the Catholic Church could eliminate one word from the world's vocabulary it would be 'venerate.' This word has done nothing but spread misconceptions about Catholic beliefs regarding Mary. I do not know of any historical fact that shows Mary is the central figure of our faith, and in fact, if a priest or bishop, or cardinal were to hear someone say that he'd immediately correct them.

Mary is important to the Catholic hierarchy because it is a central tenant of our belief that Christ is the son of God. In order to complete that, it is necessary to show that somehow Mary was pure enough to bear the son of God. Ergo, we have the Immaculate Conception, and then the Perpetual Virginity, etc. which is really there to prove that Christ was the Only son of God.

Perpetual Virginity is actually the monkey in the wrench in Catholicism. While other faiths are willing to believe that Mary was a pure, obedient handmaiden of God, they are not willing to believe she stayed a Virgin. And frankly, I don't know too many Catholics who believe that part either. So no, since Vatican II, Mary has been on the decline. While there are Catholics who still wish to venerate her, they still understand that she is not divine. Since Vatican II, the goal of the Church has been to seek ecumenical common ground, and non-Catholic misconceptions about the Church's views on Mary has been a persistent block to achieving that. So even though the Pope always says nice things about her, he's not likely to do anything to enlarge her place in the firmament.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea why you say that. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was accepted (rather oddly frankly) by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley, & remains a part of the theology of most churches in those traditions, whether or not most members know it. The Virgin Birth is upheld in the Qu'ran too, though there is no statement on the later situation. Of course these days, like any basic Christian dogma, there are plenty who don't believe in it, whether Catholic or non. I think Harmakheru has been spending too much time in Mexican villages, or somewhere similar. While many intellectuals find the cult of Mary, especially among unsophisticated female Catholics, distasteful, the church's actual teaching in no way places her as "the central figure of their faith" & never has done. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, the reason the Catholic Church has not eliminated, and cannot eliminate, the word "venerate" from its vocabulary is because it has repeatedly and insistently used that word in its most solemn statements on the subject. And with respect to Mary even "venerate" is much too mild a word, because Mary is officially entitled to "hyperveneration" as one who was "adorned from the first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique holiness" and "far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth". (And by the way, that's not from some over-the-top bit of medieval piety; it's from Lumen Gentium, one of the most important documents of Vatican II.) As for her perpetual virginity, any Catholic who does not believe this is in deep trouble with the Church, since the doctrine is taught by popes and ecumenical councils, explicitly stated in the liturgy, and considered "de fide" (i.e., obligatory as a matter of faith) by virtually all theologians. You can't toss something like that overboard just because lots of Catholics no longer believe it, or because it's a stumbling block to ecumenism (which is pretty much dead now anyway). Nor is Marianism waning in the Church as you seem to believe; on the contrary, as the Wikipedia article on Mariology says: 'In terms of popular following, membership in Roman Catholic Marian Movements and Societies has grown significantly in the 20th century. This has continued to be matched by support from the Holy See, with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) stating: "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to the truth about Jesus Christ".' Yes, there was a downturn after Vatican II; but JP2 deliberately encouraged a reversal of that trend and a return to the old ways, and Pope Benedict and the bishops they appointed are continuing in that vein. Harmakheru ✍ 05:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Harmakheru, don't believe everything you read in a Wikipedia article, especially the Marian articles. And don't forget about the politics within the hierarchy. JP2 certainly was a fan of Mary, but he didn't initiate or enlarge or bring back any Marian devotions other than to add another set of mysteries to the rosary. All the Popes have to speak to the masses who are pushing for the Church to return to the old ways. And JP2 resisted that, allowing only limited Latin Masses, etc. There's always a cry for the old ways. Benedict XVI has made it plain from his first days as Pope that he was not a fan of many things that were dropped by the church at Vatican II. He immediately approved a return to the Latin Mass and at my Church we're back to Gregorian Chant. No more guitar masses, not even the children's mass.

As far as the societies, etc., they've always promoted the old ways and Catholics who became insecure after Vatican II, flocked to them, my mom included, and she was still a little girl but she missed all the old ways. Vatican II radically altered the way things are done. New churches don't look anything like the old ones. In fact, in the town where I grew up, the new Church is very plain and if you want a fancy, statue laden church to visit, you have to visit the Episcopal Church. It's got grand statues and bloody crucifixes. But the new Catholic Church has the Vatican II dressed corpus on the cross.

When Vatican II concluded, many in the hierarchy believed that the Church should not have gone so far in getting rid of the things that make the Church unique just to 'fit in' with the other religions. But Vatican II did initiate a downgrading of Mary, a dethroning. They didn't take anything away from her, but they decided not to add anything more. If the trend were in the other direction, then the business of the co-redemptrix, etc. would have all become dogma. It has not, and most likely it will never get there. The current Pope is a fan of the Latin Mass and sacred contemplation of Christ, but only of Mary as she sets Catholics apart. He has no intentions of enlarging her status. He does however support Catholics who want to continue to venerate her especially in the third world countries where membership is increasing of late and Mary is popular.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, one does not need to go to a Mexican village to encounter Mariolatry. For example, at least one bishop here in the U.S. has taught in recent years that in the Eucharist one receives the body and blood of Mary along with the body and blood of her son; a nun of my acquaintance used to teach that Mary was so holy that she never had to defecate; and I have with my own ears heard a parish priest insert Mary's name into the invocation of the Trinity during Mass. While it may be true that the Church has never taught such things officially, it has certainly tolerated a great deal of it--not only among the theologically unsophisticated, but also among religious, priests, bishops, saints, and even a Doctor of the Church or two. (Have you ever read St. Alphonsus de Liguori's "Glories of Mary"?) And in any case, Catholicism isn't just what the Church officially teaches; it is also what the faithful believe and do as Catholics, especially when it is tolerated or even encouraged by elements of the Church's hierarchy. Harmakheru ✍ 05:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Harmakheru, don't confuse these stories of this nun, and that priest as being representative. They are not. Also, de Liguori sat around in a monastery all day. What can you expect from that? Of course he's going to write something that will be taken up by the masses.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If any Bishop or any cleric were to claim that Mary is in the Eucharist he would most likely have been excommunicated, so perhaps the story is out of context or it's been told so often it has gathered some wool.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the story wasn't taken out of context or exaggerated; and he wasn't excommunicated, either. He's still very much a bishop, and still spouting the same sort of stuff. As for Liguori, whatever excuses you may make for his writings, he was canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church after he wrote them, so they can't have deviated too far from the party line. The fact is that all this stuff is much closer to the Catholic mainstream than you want to believe, and has been for a very long time. Harmakheru ✍ 06:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Harmakheur, those are interesting points. As you can understand, the non-Catholic views are difficult to counter as they tend to run in all sorts of directions, taking elements out of one context and then another, and then presenting that as a whole truth. If you could give us the name of this Bishop it would be most helpful. I'd be interested in reading about him. In the meantime, mention of Mary in the lead is fine, but it can't be seen as suggesting Mary is a divine, central figure or that she dominates the Church.

Despite what non-Catholics believe about Catholic veneration of Mary, Catholics are well aware that the Church is about Christ, not Mary. Just because Catholics honor Mary doesn't make the practice wrong. She is, after all, the mother of Christ. And while Catholics do have saints they pray to for intercession, we all understand, (I'd venture to say even those in villages populated with these so-called 'unsophisticated females,') that the saint is merely another soul, albeit one filled with grace, praying for them, and their prayer is answered by God.

It would seem that so long as the article doesn't aim to put the Church on the defensive, then Church practices, beliefs, history will speak for themselves, as they won't be burdened with anecdotal bits about Catholics who quickly become non-Catholics when they deviate from doctrine.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic apologetics are also difficult to counter, because they too "tend to run in all sorts of directions, taking elements out of one context and then another, and then presenting that as a whole truth." Take, for example, your claim that "Catholics are well aware that the Church is about Christ, not Mary." You may be well aware of that. Your sophisticated Catholic friends may be well aware of that. But a great many Catholics, both past and present, have not been aware of that, or have effectively rejected it in practice, as evidenced by the vast array of Catholic literature, art, music, and devotional practices over the centuries that have been much more focused on Mary than on Christ. I have encountered serious and well-educated Catholics who rejected JP2's addition of the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary precisely on the grounds that those mysteries are too focused on Christ instead of Mary; they quite explicitly stated that in their view the Rosary is supposed to be about her, not him, and they resented him intruding on "her prayer". Now you may say that such people have "become non-Catholics" by taking such an attitude, but the Church disagrees; by counting such people among the "more than one billion Catholics" it claims to represent, it shows that it continues to consider them (and a great many other material heretics and schismatics) to be "real Catholics" even if somewhat defective ones from the standpoint of perfect orthodoxy.

It is easy to construct a spotless Church if you toss out of it everyone who is not perfectly moral and perfectly orthodox, and indeed that is one of the standard apologetic ploys; Catholics who deviate from the official line don't count because they are "not real Catholics", and the crimes even of "real Catholics" aren't the Church's fault because they are "only the misdeeds of sinful individuals, not of the Church"--even if the "sinful individuals" in question happen to be priests, bishops, or popes acting in their official capacity. But from a non-apologetic perspective, Catholicism simply is what Catholics do when they are being Catholics. And for many Catholics throughout much of Catholic history, that includes a primary devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, with everything else being distinctly secondary. Harmakheru ✍ 14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the name of the bishop you mentioned earlier?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK... let's start with the very fundamental tenet... the central figure of Christian faith is Christ (kind of obvious but let's start here). Christ is our mediator to the Triune God. Mary, the apostles and all the saints are far below the Trinity in importance. (This is true for all Christians). However, as stated above, some Catholics focus on a particular saint, often Mary and possibly overdo their devotion to that saint. The Church doesn't teach them to go that far but it doesn't campaign harshly enough against it to root it out either so it has continued over the last couple of millenia. The Church finds devotion to a saint laudable and worthy of encouragement as long as it is not overdone to the point of idolatry. (Of course, some fundamentalist Christians see the Catholic Church as being rife with idolatry.)

Thus, devotion to Mary and the saints is a salient distinguishing feature of the Catholic (and Orthodox) faiths. Part of the Protestant reformation was the assertion of the Five solas. The relevant principle here is Solus Christus which asserts that Christ is the only mediator and rejects the concept of other intercessors such as the saints. Thus, I believe it is important to mention the difference between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism with respect to veneration of Mary and the saints.

I am not personally able to make any assertion as to whether the centrality of Mary in the Catholic faith has increased or decreased since Vatican II. I think it would be useful to see what reliable sources have to say rather than accepting bold, unsupported assertions from Wikipedia editors.

--Richard S (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Richard for your elegant statement of the issues. I was just getting ready to respond about the lack of RS to support any of the views that Catholic vereration of Mary and/or the Saints has gone up or down due to Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI or anything else. The same thing can be said about the fact that Lourdes or other apparitions as a cause for increase. It's one thing to have your personal opinion or the 3rd party words of a supposed Jesuit priest it is another to have reliable sources that say the same thing. Marauder40 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"By inserting the mystery of Mary into the mystery of the Church, Vatican II made an important decision which should have given a new impetus to theological research. Instead, in the early post-conciliar period, there has been a sudden decline in this respect--almost a collapse ..." -- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1984 [51] Harmakheru ✍ 15:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That is just addressing "theological research". To draw a parallel to Marian devotion in general is WP:OR. Providing you are trying to use that quote as a way to say that Marian devotion is on the decline, if you are specifically talking about theological research you are fine.Marauder40 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just read the article. That's why I gave you the link for it, so it wouldn't require any more effort than absolutely necessary--all you have to do is click on it. If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen that, among other things, Ratzinger says that Mary's "reputation seems to be clouded today with some Catholics"; that after the Council the dogma of the Assumption which once "so uplifted us instead escapes us. We ask ourselves whether with it we may not be placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of a reunion with our evangelical fellow Christians, whether it would not be much easier if this stone did not lie on the road, this stone which we ourselves had placed there in the so recent past. We also ask ourselves whether with such a dogma we may not threaten the orientation of Christian piety. Will it not be misdirected, instead of looking toward God the Father and toward the sole mediator, Jesus Christ ..." He says that "it is necessary to go back to Mary" and "urgent" to "rediscover" the place Mary formerly occupied in the faith. (You don't have to go back to what you already have, or to rediscover what you have never lost.) He laments the fact that even in Latin America "the traditional Marian piety of the people is in decline" and that this is "a phenomenon that can be noted almost everywhere". But of course that's just his opinion; after all, he's just the Prefect of the CDF and a future pope. What does he know? Harmakheru ✍ 18:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the entire thing before I responded to you, do not be dismissive. I actually enjoyed reading something that I hadn't seen before because most of his writings I have read. I never said that there aren't reliable sources that may say one view or the other. At the point everyone was talking none had been put forward. Using this as a RS would depend on the wording of what was added. As I said before the exact quote you were trying to parallel only was talking about studies. Care must be taken to word it in a way that isn't OR also this is only talking about a specific timeperiod (up to 1985.) It can't be used to reflect what things are like in the Church right now. Care must also be taken in interpretting what he means by statements like "we must" and things like that. Whether he is referring to the Church as a whole, or individuals as in their individual spiritual journey. He does seem to switch back and forth in his usage, but it could just be how the exert was taken out of the original.Marauder40 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you do not wish me to be dismissive of you, then you and the other defenders of Holy Mother Church should stop being so dismissive of me and everyone else who disagrees with you. The question at issue in the previous discussion was whether or not there was a decline in Marian piety after Vatican II. The article I pointed you to--which you admit you have read--quotes the head of the CDF in 1984 as saying that there had been such a decline (using precisely that word) both in Latin America and generally. Since the head of the CDF is well positioned to have that information and to follow the trends worldwide, and since he makes an unqualified statement to that effect, one must conclude either that such a decline did in fact occur, or that Ratzinger believed it did but was mistaken (and therefore grossly incompetent), or else that he was simply lying about it. Your call. Harmakheru ✍ 19:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please point to where I was being dismissive? You must be reading something into my writing that isn't there. First off I just joined this thread so please give me the benefit of the doubt and don't lump me in with others. All I did was ask for RS and comment that the parallel didn't hold up with that one quote, then say anything used must be worded real carefully. Before you provided ONE RS, none had been provided.Marauder40 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The question at issue is whether it was at all reasonable to have 1/3 of the lead on Mary, the first thing Haldraper felt it necessary to add after stripping the lead to bare bones and beyond. Fascinating though it has been it clarifying where some of the regular editors here are coming from, any movement in levels of Marian piety in the last 50 years has a marginal relevance to that question, and the matter wasn't even in the text being discussed. I think the point is made, & since Harmakheru seems to be reaching boiling point once again, it is probably best to stop here. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that certain editors who insist that there has been a diminution of the importance of Mary in the Catholic Church are also insisting on devoting a large part of the lead to the importance of Mary in the Catholic Church? That doesn't seem logical. Surely I must have misunderstood. Esoglou (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting chat. I am not averse to a mention of Mary in the lead, but not more than a sentence would be DUE WEIGHT in my opinion. As far as marian devotion rising or falling, those who report a decline tend to be those who want more of it, so that reflects their POV. Popularly Marian pilgrimages are as popular as ever. The post Vatican II reforms tended to diminish certain devotions in official worship, such as the Salve regina after mass and the promotion of the Rosary, as well as there being less emphasis on Mary in catechesis and teaching. However other devotions such as benediction and the centrality of the reserved sacrament also suffered, along with certain saints being removed from the calendar (including Christopher and George), so its difficult to see changes as focussed on Mary. In addition a swing back in the other direction has certainly been noted in recent decades. Xandar 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As I implied in my first comment above, I would not object to a "due weight" mention in a much longer lead (as it should be), though I really don't think recent trends in popularity belong there. But the way it was was absurd, reflecting the personal views set out above. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I could myself see mentioning the belief in Mary aas Queen of Heaven in the lead, because that belief seems to be unique to Catholics, and maybe mentioning quickly the Catholic devotions related to her. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning Mary as the Blessed Virgin Mary would seem more appropriate for the lead as it is there now. Adding other titles would require some explanation and that could make the lead start to grow exponentially as other editors might have a favorite title for Mary they want included, like Our Lady of Lourdes, or Our Lady of Fatima which reflect Church approved Marian apparitions. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't actually thinking of the title "Queen of Heaven", but rather to that particular article, and the concept of Mary being the "queen of heaven", but the article does also mention in the first two paragraphs her physical assumption. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a reply to Johnbod's first comment that was written an hour ago but got held up by the demands of real life so it repeats some of the sentiments expressed by Xandar et al.

OK, guys, regardless of whatever Benedict XVI thought back in 1984 when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, we Wikipedians have to be careful not to give that statement undue weight. First of all, even if he was right that Marian theological study and devotion diminished after Vatican II, he wrote that over a quarter century ago. Vatican II occurred almost half a century ago! 1984 was still relatively early in JPII's reign as Pope. We would need to put Ratzinger's 1984 comments in the context of what transpired over the following quarter century. (I'm not asserting any knowledge about whether the Catholic focus on Mary waxed or waned during that period. I'm just saying that it would be risky to hang too much on a comment that is a quarter century old.

Also, focusing on the state of Marian theology and lay devotions over a 50 year period risks the problem of recentism. Whatever has transpired over the last 50 years may be important but it must be considered in the context of the last two millenia. Old perceptions die hard. What non-Catholics think of Catholics is based on hundreds of years of history and is not easily changed over a handful of decades. --Richard S (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean me? Doesn't seem to relate to any of my comments, but I agree. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's also true, unfortunately, that what non-Catholics think of Catholics, particularly in the United States, is in part due to the overemphases and mischaracterizations of Catholics by a very pronounced tendency toward anti-Catholicism in that country. That, too, should be taken into account. John Carter (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, John. It should be taken into account, but what non-Catholics/anti-Catholics think shouldn't dominate here. There shouldn't be a 'compare and contrast' theme running through the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity template?

Is there a reason that Template:Christianity is not used in this article? Because parts are redundant with Template:Roman Catholicism? ...comments? ~BFizz 15:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging Vatican City into Holy See

Someone has suggested merging Vatican City into the Holy See article. Please vote! – S Masters (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Lead (again)

The lead has once again morphed into an "unencyclopedic" form and needs to be corrected.

(1) The text now states that the Church "considers that its doctrines have been defined infallibly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit", with this being cited to a passage of Lumen Gentium which supposedly asserts that "Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals." But the link is defective so it is impossible to follow it to the alleged source, and in fact the quote is nowhere to be found in Lumen Gentium. It is from the Catechism (paragraph 890), and it is badly taken out of context even there. The rest of that paragraph goes on to say, "The exercise of this charism takes several forms:" after which there is another entire paragraph which carefully qualifies and restricts the scope of the first statement. As a matter of fact, the Church does not teach that "its doctrines have been defined infallibly"; it teaches that some of its doctrines have been defined infallibly, while most of its doctrines have not. As section 3 of Canon 749 states, "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such"; and as the 1985 commentary by the Canon Law Society of America explains, "In fact the exercise of the infallible teaching authority is extremely rare."

(2) The text states that the Church "believes" that it was founded by Jesus Christ, etc. But in fact "the Church" cannot be demonstrated or known to "believe" anything, since belief is an interior state inaccessible to exterior verification. What the Church (or at least the Church's magisterium) "teaches" can be verified from reliable sources; what it "believes" cannot.

(3) Similarly, the text states that the Church's worship is "centered on the Eucharist, in which Catholics believe bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ". But not only is what "Catholics believe" unverifiable, there is also considerable statistical evidence that significant numbers of Catholics actually profess not to believe in transubstantiation at all. Of course someone may wish to argue that anyone who doesn't believe in transubstantiation is not "really Catholic", but then the claimed count of "more than a billion members" can no longer be sustained. Take your pick. Harmakheru ✍ 22:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Since my previous comments have been sitting here for several days without reply or objection, I have gone ahead and made the necessary changes. Harmakheru ✍ 01:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the arguments you make above are flawed, for example, the majority of the doctrine handed down from the early Church is considered infallible en-bloc. It is NEW infallible definitions that are rare. However the actual changes you have made to the page are inoffensive enough. Xandar 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's only a portion of the early doctrines that are considered infallible, then by definition they can't be "considered infallible en-bloc" because "en bloc" means "as a whole" or "altogether". In fact, most (alleged) teachings of the early Church that are now considered infallible are known to be so because they were solemnly declared to be such by popes or ecumenical councils. See, for example, Cardinal Ratzinger's formal teaching on this subject in his "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei" [52], in which he gives the following as examples of infallible teachings: "the articles of faith of the creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being". Almost all of these get their authority from the decrees of councils or papal definitions ex cathedra, not from any demonstrable presence in the amorphous body of early Church teaching; on the other hand, a number of other doctrines which clearly were a part of the teaching of the early Church and had all the marks of being apostolic, universal, and irreformable, such as the prohibitions on lending money at interest or killing in warfare, have subsequently been tossed overboard. And a significant proportion of the teachings contained in the present Catechism come neither from the early Church nor from the infallible declarations of popes and councils, but from more recent developments in theological opinion, and have no legitimate claim whatever to infallible authority. Harmakheru ✍ 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think actually you have rather made my point that a majority of what most people would define as core Catholic doctrines, are considered as infallibly defined. Not lending money at interest was never I believe a central or infallible teaching. The point is that it is not just a few isolated teachings that are infallible, but much of the core of doctrine. Xandar 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That may have been what you meant, but it's not what you actually said in the article. What you said was that the Church "considers that its doctrines have been defined infallibly by the guidance of the Holy Spirit". Nothing in there about "core doctrines" or anything of the sort; as written it was a statement about "doctrines" generally, and as such it was false--as I correctly pointed out. And I never said anything about infallibility only applying to "a few isolated teachings". What I said was that "some of its doctrines have been defined infallibly, while most of its doctrines have not". This is easily verified by the fact that reputable authorities such as Ludwig Ott put the count of infallible dogmas at somewhere around 250, while the current Catechism has more than 2800 paragraphs, many of which themselves contain multiple doctrinal assertions. At a minimum that puts the ratio of official but non-infallible "doctrines" to infallible "dogmas" at better than ten to one, which I think proves my point rather nicely.

As for usury, it was "the universal opinion of all teachers of morals, theologians, doctors, Popes, and Councils of the Christian Church for the first fifteen hundred years" that "all interest exacted upon loans of money was looked upon as usury, and its reception was esteemed a form of theft and dishonesty". [53] A moral stricture which is found in scripture and was taught universally and forcefully by the highest authorities of the Church for 1500 years--and for much of that time was punished by deposition from office, excommunication, and denial of Christian burial--comes as close as anything can to "what has been taught everywhere and always by everyone" and therefore would normally be considered infallible dogma by the standard of the "ordinary and universal magisterium". The fact that an apparently infallible scriptural and apostolic teaching was subsequently reversed by the magisterium is cause enough for concern; but the fact that it was reversed on the basis of an excuse concocted by John Calvin is, in my view, downright hilarious. Harmakheru ✍ 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Think of it as ecumenicism...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, H, on usury, your own reference denies your argument:

Generally speaking, the evidence points to the conclusion that the Church imposed no penalty on the layman. St. Basil (Epist. clxxxviii. can. 12), says that a usurer may even be admitted to orders, provided he gives his acquired wealth to the poor and abstains for the future from the pursuit of gain (Migne, Patrol. Græc. xxxii. 275). Gregory of Nyssa says that usury, unlike theft, the desecration of tombs, and sacrilege (ἱεροσυλία ), is allowed to pass unpunished, although among the things forbidden by Scripture, nor is a candidate at ordination ever asked whether or no he has been guilty of the practice (Migne, ib. xlv. 233). A letter of Sidonius Apollinaris (Epist. vi. 24) relating an experience of his friend Maximus, appears to imply that no blame attached to lending money at the legal rate of interest, and that even a bishop might be a creditor on those terms. We find also Desideratus, bishop of Verdun, when applying for a loan to king Theodebert, for the relief of his impoverished diocese, promising repayment, “cum usuris legitimis,” an expression which would seem to imply that in the Gallican church usury was recognised as lawful under certain conditions (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iii. 34). So again a letter (Epist. ix. 38) of Gregory the Great seems to shew that he did not regard the payment of interest for money advanced by one layman to another as unlawful. Xandar 22:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, all this proves is that the prohibition was not universally and rigorously enforced--just as the prohibition on contraception is not effectively enforced today. If lack of rigorous, universal enforcement proves that a teaching is non-infallible, then Humanae Vitae must be put in that category as well. Lots of people on your side of the divide would be very unhappy with that conclusion.

On the other hand, consider what councils and popes--the highest teaching authorities in the Church--have actually said on the subject:

• "We condemn that detestable, disgraceful, and insatiable rapacity of usurers which has been outlawed by divine and human laws in the Old and New Testaments, and we deprive them of all ecclesiastical consolation, commanding that no archbishop, no bishop, no abbot of any order, nor anyone in clerical orders, shall, except with the utmost caution, dare receive usurers; but during their whole life let them be stigmatized with the mark of infamy, and unless they repent let them be deprived of Christian burial." [Second Lateran Council]
• "Nearly everywhere the crime of usury has become so firmly rooted that many, omitting other business, practise usury as if it were permitted, and in no way observe how it is forbidden in both the Old and New Testament. We therefore declare that notorious usurers should not be admitted to communion of the altar or receive Christian burial if they die in this sin. Whoever receives them or gives them Christian burial should be compelled to give back what he has received, and let him remain suspended from the performance of his office until he has made satisfaction according to the judgment of his own bishop." [Third Lateran Council]
• "Among those who are guilty of robbery are ... usurers, the most cruel and relentless of extortioners, who by their exorbitant rates of interest, plunder and destroy the poor. Whatever is received above the capital and principal, be it money, or anything else that may be purchased or estimated by money, is usury; for it is written in Ezechiel: He hath not lent upon usury, nor taken an increase; and in Luke our Lord says: Lend, hoping for nothing thereby. Even among the pagans usury was always considered a most grievous and odious crime. Hence the question, 'What is usury?' was answered: 'What is murder?' [Roman Catechism]
• "If anyone falls into the error of believing and affirming that it is not a sin to practice usury, we decree that he be punished as a heretic, and we strictly command the ordinaries ... and the inquisitors to proceed against those suspected of such errors in the same way as they would proceed against those accused publicly or suspected of heresy." [Pope Clement V]
• "... detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity." [Pope Sixtus V]
• "... a grave disease and deadly poison." [Pope Pius V]

Etc., etc., etc. Harmakheru ✍ 02:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Xandar and Harmakheru, this discussion should not be about usury but about the assertion that Harmakheru made that "reputable authorities such as Ludwig Ott put the count of infallible dogmas at somewhere around 250, while the current Catechism has more than 2800 paragraphs, many of which themselves contain multiple doctrinal assertions." I think one has to be careful about engaging in OR in comparing Ott's "250 infallible dogmas" against "2800 paragraphs in the Catechism". This runs the risk of synthesis by applying Ott's assertion against the raw count of "2800 paragraphs in the Catechism" when it is not clear that Ott intended for his count of 250 to be compared against the 2800 paragraphs of the Catechism. Nonetheless, it would be useful to know how much of the Catechism is considered "infallible". Even if one arrived at the conclusion that only a third of the Catechism was considered infallible, that would be a vastly different statement from the assertion that 99% of it was. Can anyone provide a more grounded argument than Harmakheru's hand-waving argument? --Richard S (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed have been hard for Ott to have "intended" that his count of dogmas be compared with the number of paragraphs in the Catechism, since Ott died in 1985 and the Catechism was promulgated in 1992. I seriously doubt if Newton intended for his laws of motion to be compared with Einstein's theory of relativity, either, but for some reason that doesn't stop people from comparing them, even here on Wikipedia. Fancy that.

Given the way things on this page are now proceeding, I move we table all discussion of actual Catholic teaching and spend six months arguing over whether it is "original research" to assert that there are three persons in the Trinity. After that we can spend another six months arguing over whether it is "synthesis" to conclude that if A = B and B = C then A might actually equal C. And if there's anyone left standing after that, we can move on to a spirited discussion of how many angels can dance on the dome of St. Peter's Basilica. Harmakheru ✍ 02:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. Give me a break. I thought you were far more reasonable than that. Look, the question is whether each of Ott's "infallible dogmas" corresponds to roughly one paragraph in the Catechism (or even less if, as you argue, some paragraphs have multiple doctrinal assertions) or if one or more of the dogmas correspond to multiple paragraphs or even whole sections of the Catechism. The problem here is that, even if you painstakingly mapped each of Ott's infallible dogmas against the sections and paragraphs of the Catechism, the result would still be your original research. We could indeed argue for years about whether or not you had done the mapping correctly or not. That is why we prefer to cite reliable sources that can be verified. That way, we can say "Expert X argues A, B and C while Expert Y accepts A and B but challenges C". If it is reasonable to compare Ott's dogmas to the paragraphs and sections of the Catechism, then there should be some reliable source out there that has done so in a verifiable publication. If such source cannot be found, then one has to look quite skeptically on your assertion as being the product of your own mind and not ascertainably one that is shared by a significant segment of the academic community. (NB: I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just laying out the required standard of proof.) --Richard S (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I am perfectly reasonable when dealing with other reasonable people. But rationality is a waste of time on Wikipedia, as you ought to know by now. Consider how little was accomplished in years of "being reasonable" with Xandar, Nancy, and the other True Believers who insisted (and continue to insist) that the Catholic Church article must be an apologetic puff piece for Catholic recruitment. Only when Ubercryxic went ballistic and nuked the entire article was any progress made, primarily because poor Nancy's feelings got hurt and she finally took a vacation from the page for a while. But Xandar and the others are still here, and still exercising the True Believer veto--and people like you continue to allow them to get away with it, even as you lambaste people like me for doing "original research" and "synthesis" on the talk page, regardless of whether or not any of that discussion was ever aimed at inserting text into the article.

Xandar is the one who put into the article an improperly sourced (and demonstrably false) claim that the Church "considers that its doctrines have been defined infallibly". I pointed out, correctly, that his statement was both badly sourced and factually inaccurate, and I backed this up with citations to multiple sources approved by the Church itself. Xandar's response to this was to claim that my arguments were "flawed"--a claim which he supported with nothing other than an unsourced assertion of his own (which also turned out not to be true). I responded to this with another citation from an official Church document which speaks directly to the point at issue, and Xandar replied with another unsourced assertion of questionable accuracy. And so forth and so on, back and forth, with me citing sources and offering reasonable arguments, and Xandar making unsourced claims and spewing falsehoods and fallacies left and right--and then you jump in and start criticizing me for my supposed "hand-waving argument" and my alleged failure to follow the rules on verifiability, with nary a word about the hogwash Xandar has been spewing all along the way. But this is what I have come to expect from you; it is what you have been doing for as long as I've been here. The True Believers repeatedly break every rule in the book--incivility, name-calling, failure to assume good faith, unsourced assertions, falsehoods and fallacies at every turn--and no one says a word to them; but if those of us who are the targets of their misbehavior dare to defend ourselves, we get slapped down and treated with contempt. The rule seems to be that we must be tenderly solicitous of the feelings, needs, and sensibilities of bullies, ax-grinders, and ignoramuses, but those who actually know something about the subject and are trying to behave reasonably must be held to a higher standard and smacked down at every opportunity. A lot of good people have been thrown beneath the wheels of that bus, even in the time I've been here. No doubt a lot more will suffer a similar fate in the future, because it doesn't look like it's ever going to change.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. As has often been pointed out, Wikipedia is not about truth; nor is it really about "verifiability"; as Peter Jackson correctly points out, verifiability on Wikipedia is a fraud. In fact, although Wikipedia pretends to be about the real world, it is nothing of the sort. Wikipedia is actually a MUD, in fact the mother of all MUDs: It is the world's largest and most complex multiplayer virtual-reality text game. The purpose of this game is not to accurately describe the world we live in, but to redefine some portion of the gamespace according to one's personal fantasies of how things ought to be; and the way one accomplishes this is by outmaneuvering and outlasting one's opponents through wikilawyering and incessant psychological warfare. Those who prevail in this game "win" in multiple ways: They get the enjoyment of crushing and humiliating their opponents, and the adulation of their allies for doing so; they get to instantiate their fantasy world on Wikipedia; and, best of all, they get to delude a significant portion of the English-speaking world into thinking that their fantasy world actually is the way the real world works. Who could ask for more fun than that!

But as you never tire of reminding us, that's just the way Wikipedia is, and if we don't like it we can leave. I should have taken that advice a long time ago; it would have spared me a lot of needless angst and freed up a lot of time for things that actually matter. In the final analysis, nothing I've done here has made one iota of difference--not because my contributions were inherently valueless, but simply because the True Believers weren't having any of it, and the "moderates" like you not only let them get away with it but actively appease and enable them.

I can't recover any of the time I've already wasted on Wikipedia, but at least I can refrain from continuing to make the same mistake in the future. The sandbox is yours; do with it as you will. I don't care anymore. Harmakheru ✍ 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A very clear headed and lucid analysis. Don’t be too disheartened for there are many who value honesty and integrity and they do read what you write and compare it with those who long for the day when once again the click of the jack-boot will force people like you to fall into line or else.. They maybe come to this place genuinely seeking information and a path through life. They can see what is in the shop window with all the fine sounding words from selective quotations from religious texts drawn from apologetics sources and are maybe drawn to something that glitters like gold (the never-ending story of Osiris and Seth). But then they come to the talk page and see what is inside the shop and think again. In this sense the “True Believers”, unwittingly, are servants of ma'at (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I know , having gazed on the sirloin countenance of Josep Miralles Sbert, archbishop of palma in 1936, and read bernanos 's accounts of that time on Majorca, that Xandar's version of the history of the Church, is not the only one. Sayerslle (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Pristuccia (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)I would, after reading this lengthy battle and debate like to add my two cents. Many of the points raised by the user calling himself Harmakheru have nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Questions like proving what people believe as opposed to Church doctrine belong in a forum for philosophical debate, not an article on the Church. For example, this article isn't meant to explore whether or not Catholics fully believe in transubstantiation, the point is that the Church teaches it. This article is about the Catholic Church, not debates, questions, etc. that may exist within (or outside of) its membership.

Pristuccia, it is conventional to put your signature and timestamp at the end of your comment, not at the beginning.

Speaking to the substance of your comment, that was exactly Harmakheru's point. There is a world of difference between asserting "Catholics believe x, y and z" (an effectively unprovable assertion) and "the Catholic Church teaches x, y and z". All he was saying in points (2) & (3) above is that we should use the latter locution instead of the former. Unfortunately, Harmakheru lacks adequate patience and perseverance to get his points through. I'm sorry for that. He often contributes useful perspectives. --Richard S (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. My apologies for the misunderstanding. I would certainly agree that there is a world of difference between doctrine and belief. Pristuccia (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Pristuccia

Christianity and violence

The Christianity and violence article has been almost totally rewritten undergone substantial expansion and rewriting in the last few weeks. I was responsible for much of the rewriting. Any suggestions for further improvement would be much appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Article renaming

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Catholic Church → Catholic Christianity — See Talk:Catholicism#Article_reorganisation 91.182.53.128 (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: Editors may wish to comment at Talk:Catholicism#Article_reorganisation also, where there is a proposal to merge "Catholicism" into "Christianity".

• You're going to have to do a better job of explaining your reasons. I read what you wrote at that link and I don't see the rationale for such a wide-ranging change. Powers ^T 19:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose without a much better explanation. Agree with Powers. The Catholic Church is known throughout the English-speaking world as the "Catholic Church" or the "Roman Catholic Church", not "Catholic Christianity". Cresix (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as "Catholic Church" refers to the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches all in full communion with the Holy See. "Catholic Christianity" would refer to Catholicism, which is much more than just the RCC and eastern churches. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- for reasons stated above.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - clear inequivalence of the two terms. Knepflerle (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons given by Cresix, Will, and Knepferle above. Kelly ^hi! 03:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term is obscure. Majoreditor (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Cresix, Will, and Knepferle above. I don't know anyone in the English speaking world who would refer to the Catholic Church as Catholic Christianity. Certainly no mainstream media outlet would do this. – SMasters (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- this is about the single organization known as the "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church". "Catholicism" might be an appropriate subject for the proposed name, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is about the Roman Catholic Church, should remain where it is currently. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Catholic Christianity could be construed to refer to the theology of other groups - see the number of denominations that espouse the Apostles creed and the (lower case) catholic church.Eldamorie (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request

{{edit protected}}

Please capitalize Gospel as well as the Body and Blood of Christ. Thank you very much.

Done. Bjmullan (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the most recent edit history (made at 23:51, 27 December 2010 by User:Mnewhous) states that the Church is "the oldest religious institution in the world," is this actually true, or was this just an overbold edit? The claim of oldest institution is highly debatable; what about the Eastern Orthodox and other religious institutions? This edit also uses the phrase "Jesus Christ himself," not only is this a loaded phrase, it garbles the rest of the sentence. While the mention in this most recent version of:

It maintains that its teachings on faith and morals are infallibly guaranteed against error through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised to St. Peter that hell would not prevail against the Church founded on him as the Rock

is somewhat clearer on the Church's (the Pope's) infallibility, the latter half of the sentence is rather loaded and may violate Neutral Bias (I think). Maybe it could be changed or reverted? -- Ever Confused, StudentInsomniac 06:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the intro to remove the dubious/unreferenced claims and POV statements referred to above. Haldraper (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Catholic" / "Universal"

Some editors - without any valid reasons - are removing my clarification of the original meaning of "catholic". The word does not just mean "universal" - at least not how this word is now generally used in English - and is misleading. The fuller meaning of the word is provided in the Catholic article and there is no good reason for not including some reference to this in this article. Afterwriting (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The article you cite says: "The word catholic (derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal", comes from the Greek phrase καθόλο (kath'holou) meaning "on the whole," "according to the whole" or "in general" and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and όλος meaning "whole." The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church." It does not say that Ignatius of Antioch used the Greek word "in the sense of 'according to the whole'". It does not say that the Greek word, formed on the basis of a Greek phrase that had several meanings, actually meant "according to the whole". On the contrary, what it does state is that the Greek word meant "universal". So what are the valid reasons for saying that what Ignatius meant was "according to the whole"? Esoglou (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No valid reasons have been produced. So the claim is removed. Esoglou (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly, the Greek word is a name, but it is not even a one count Greek like it is an English. I find it dissapointing that the name of the article is not Roman "Catholic" Church or Roman Church. It is obvious that this form of catholicism began with the Geat Schism, and is not the original "Catholic" Eastern Orthodox church started by constantine.--207.191.211.248 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the statement above. Furthermore, it is NOT true that "Catholic Church" = "Roman Catholic Church". There are many Catholic Churches that are not Roman Catholic (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=catholic%20church). The article should be titled Roman Catholic Church and then within the article it should mention that the Roman Catholic Church is often referred to as the Catholic Church even though there are several different Catholic Churches. How do we get this corrected, because as it stands now this article is embarrassingly (moderately, and perhaps understandably, so) wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You may find WP:COMMONNAME interesting. It basically says that on Wikipedia we use the most common name for something, even if that name might not be entirely accurate. If a majority of reliable sources refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church", then we do to. NickCT (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I read it and I did find it interesting and useful. But I'm not sure it applies in this case. The problem here is that while I can accept that the common name for the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church this common name is also the name of a different entity. And by using the common name to title the article for Roman Catholic Church Wikipedia now eliminates the possibility of having an article on this different entity that has the title of this entity. That is, there cannot be a Wikipedia article titled "Catholic Church" that is about the "Catholic Church", as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Another thing interesting about WP:COMMONNAME is that it defines a test to use to determine whether the common name is indeed an acceptable usage. I don't know how to do a proper test but when I Googled "Catholic Church" I got quite a mixture of what was obviously a reference to "Roman Catholic Church" and the proper Catholic Church. I don't think this article passes the test. Has anyone actual done a proper test to determine this article is in compliance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, a couple interesting points here. Let me try to respond 1 by 1

1) If there are two entities whose WP:COMMONNAME is "Catholic Church", the next policy we apply is Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I just checked, and I noticed that someone has already taken this step (see Catholic_Church_(disambiguation).

2) As to your Google test, if it really is the case that when you google "catholic church" the large majority or hits you get don't refer to the "Roman Catholic Church", then you might have a case here to try to fiddle with the article names. My uneducated guess though is that you would not have a case, b/c in my mind when someone says "Catholic Church" they usually (or almost always) are referring to the "Roman Catholic Church".

As a sidenote to this; I really struggled with the idea of WP:COMMONNAME when I was first introduced to it. I felt things should have the "correct" name; however, over time, I've come to appreciate the policy. It's probably right and good that WP's "Catholic Church" article is about the "Roman Catholic Church" if when people use the phrase "Catholic Church" they generally mean "Roman Catholic Church". In the end it help wikipedia users find what they are looking for.

3) On an unrelated note, your posts seem clever and intelligent. Might I suggest you register on Wikipedia and become a regular editor? NickCT (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem in History section 2.2 -Late Antiquity

The 4th paragraph begins with:

In the same century, Pope Damasus I commissioned a new translation of the Bible in fine classical Latin. He chose his secretary St. Jerome, who delivered the Vulgate– the Church was now "committed to think and worship in Latin."

The last sentence (a quote taken out of context) implicates an unjust negative conotation, inferring that the Church imposed the Latin language upon the people. Reality is that this is quite the opposite. In the east languages and cultures were already established, however the west was not and primarily existed as tribal communities. The lone unity between tribal communities came about via the Roman Empire and its Latin language...similar to Native Americans communicating in English as their "common" tongue as a means for intertribal communication. The bottom line is that the Church establish the Latin language as the official language of the Church and the Vulgate was appropriately named, because it provided the Word of God to the Masses in the COMMON "Vulgar" tongue as opposed to Hebrew and Greek which could not be understood in the West. Hence the name of the first translated Bible authroized by the Church: The Vulgate. Not an imposition of the Latin language, but conversly a liberating and unifying action where the Church was simply facilitating the transmission of the written WORD to all the peoples of the Western frontier. Micael (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the 'quote taken out of context' - it comes from the second programme of mccullochs series and was a chronological telling of the story of the early history of the cath church. at the point in time when the vulgate appeared he mentioned it - how that is 'out of context' beats me. it was 'committed to worship in latin' wasn't it - the word 'imposition' , thats you saying that, not the quote.Sayerslle (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't the best phrasing. I do wish you wouldn't source everything off the tv. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Jerome's translation is the first hint of Latin Christianity, which became the Roman Catholic Church.--207.191.211.248 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaning what exactly? See Latin Fathers. Tertullian was two centuries before Jerome. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Latin isn't the original language of the original church. Greek is. I am suprised how you don't know this.--207.191.211.248 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... did I miss something? I don't believe anyone has claimed that Latin is "the original language of the original church". As for Greek, I doubt that Jesus and the apostles used much very Greek or Latin when conversing with each other. Cresix (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

They might have used greek though. Sepphoris was near Nazareth and was a thriving hellenized town.92.8.199.245 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they used Greek and Latin. Many Americans use Spanish, but it's not the official language of the United States. Both Greek and Latin were dominant in the known world then, but to argue that either Latin or Greek was the "original language of the original church" is absurd. How do we define original church? I assume the church established by Jesus and his original apostles. How do we define the "original language of the original church"? That would be the primary language of Jesus and his original apostles, which wasn't either Latin or Greek. Cresix (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Aramaic and Greek are the languages Jesus and the apostles used , and Pauls letters , so in that sense 'the original church' languages are those, yet latin became the language of the Roman Catholic Mass and its official language - hence the mention of the Vulgate and its importance as a symbol kind of thing, of that prioritising of languages? 92.8.199.245 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm sure they used Greek. But there is no doubt that they mostly spoke Aramaic (or other form of Hebrew) amongst themselves. So if there is an "original" language of the "original" church, it's Aramaic, not Greek. Cresix (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

But what the 'original church' was , was half made up of teaching about 'Christ within us' - and Pauls version of what it all added up to,(Nietzsche said he messed it up, Jesus was o.k. but Paul messed it up) - and his language of communciation throughout was Greek,thats why the IP above said the original language was Greek I reckon, so the 'original church' languages were aramaic/other form of hebrew (how many other versions of Hebrew were there) - and greek. 92.10.175.36 (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The "original" church was Jesus and his original apostles (and did not include Paul, who never met Jesus). And they primarily used Aramaic, not Greek. Cresix (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aramaic is in no sense a "form of Hebrew", but a fairly closely related language that was used in the region as a legacy of the Assyrian and Persian Empires. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I misspoke. I meant that Jesus and his original apostles used mostly Aramaic and Hebrew; Greek was used less. In any event, the "original languge of the original church" was not Greek. Cresix (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the utility of the word "fine" in the phrase "fine classical Latin"? Makes the prose too flowery. I would remove "fine" and just leave "classical Latin". --Richard S (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe t.v historians tend to go for a bit 'flowery' language, or emphatic statements - they want impact, want to make an impression, get a point over. I think that is a strength of their language , as well as a weakness. Make a point, mention the Vulgate, when it appeared, why it was significant, then move on. In the end I don't understand this argument over what McCulloch said - the source is McCulloch, not 'the tv'. Sayerslle (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

They have very little time and are speaking to the widest possible audience so they tend (as here) to go for drastic oversimplification. In a subject with as many sources available as here we really shouldn't use them. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So we 'shouldn't use' David Starkey on the Tudors, or Robert Bartlett (historian) on the Normans , or McCulloch . We are in a kind of hurry too, (I thought wiki-pedia, meant 'quick-education') in an article on a subject as vast as this. Anyway, change it then, I think its o.k as it is. Micael, change it. Make it clear, not so out of contextly implicatingly unjustly negatively connotated - Sayerslle (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Their books yes, their tv scripts no. Did you ever wonder why they bother to write 300 page books if they can say it all in a 10 page script? Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Economy?

Why is there no economic information of any kind? The Catholic Church is one of the largest multinational corporations, probably in the 11-digit US$ range[54][55].--88.74.199.21 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those refs bear that out, unless every Catholic church in the world were sold, with permission to redevelop the site, which hardly seems likely. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the anon IP editor got the magnitude of the Church's assets wrong doesn't change the validity of the question. I had wondered about this question myself but it just never bubbled up to the top of my priority list given the many other Wikibattles over this article. However, now is as good a time as any to ask the question: Why is there no coverage at all of the financial aspect of the Church's operations?

Throughout most of history, the Church was one of the wealthiest institutions in existence. This gave it secular power especially in Europe and therefore secular interests which it was motivated to defend via involvement in political battles. This changed after the loss of the Papal States although the separation of Church and State had begun perhaps a century earlier so like most things in history the loss of the Papal States was only the final act in a long-running drama.

Even after the loss of the Papal States, the Church remained wealthy. It's just that the wealth had transformed more into financial assets than territorial assets.

The first link is chockful of information and there is more than enough information on the financial aspects of the Church to fill at least one Wikipedia article.

But why is there no mention of this topic at all in the top-level summary article?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of our religious articles go into finance much - given the expertise of most editors this is probably wise. On a quick view the church seems to have financial reserves of about $1 per member, with no doubt many large legal claims pending. But the relationship between Vatican, dioceses, parishes and orders makes the whole matter very complicated. What do you think should be said? Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The "Church" as a whole doesn't have a cent. Money is taken in through donation or made through various other means for each diocese separately. Individual parishes keep a portion for upkeep, send some to the head of their diocese, and donate the rest. None of it heads off to the Vatican and there are, as far as I know, no true unified numbers on this. Financially speaking, each diocese is a separate entity, which is why some are well off while others don't even have electricity, and also why it would simply be impossible to produce statistics in this regard. One could acquire the annual budget of the Vatican specifically (200ish million last I heard), but I would think that would be better for the Vatican article if anywhere.Farsight001 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "better for the Vatican article" - nonsense... details might be dealt with elsewhere but a one paragraph summary here would be appropriate. Otherwise, you will periodically get this kind of query which is legitimate even if misinformed. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I said numbers for the Vatican would be better for the Vatican article. If there were some numbers for the whole Church, that would belong here. However, there are not, and someone gathering the statistics of every parish in the world and adding them all together would not only be an insurmountable task, but original research to boot.Farsight001 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I read your original intention the first time and I disagree that "Vatican numbers" should be relegated to the article on the Vatican. While I don't necessarily want to use this particular article as a source, I think it provides a good example of the kind of info we should look for. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Explain, then, why you think a thing like the budget for the Vatican belongs here and not there? I get the impression that while you may have read my above comment, you did not understand it, as you seem to still not quite understand how the Church functions financially. The Vatican acts as it's own diocese. It's numbers do not reflect that of the entire Church. In fact, the Vatican's budget is less than that of the diocese of several big cities on the U.S. Farsight001 (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... without proposing to put any of the following into the article verbatim, I would like to ask you what if any of the following should be discussed in this article as opposed to the article on the Vatican...

"Like his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI will become the chief executive of a vast and valuable empire. The Catholic Church in America alone would rank right in the middle of the Fortune 500 list of companies, competing with the likes of drug giant Schering-Plough and home builder Pulte Homes.

The Catholic Church has numerous assets, including a vast amount of real estate. It owns more land globally than any other organization on the planet, "

"Total donations made at a parish level in 2003 were $8 billion said Harris. And while Harris’ research shows donations increased at an average annual rate of 4 percent from 2000 to 2003, there’s no guarantee that growth rate will continue."

"the church currently has a very conservative portfolio of investments, mostly in dollar-denominated accounts"

" recent sex abuse settlements have drained hundreds of millions of dollars from church coffers, resulting in mounting pressure for the pope to pursue a more aggressive investment strategy."

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Farsight001, your statement that "The 'Church' as a whole doesn't have a cent" is not true. The church owns property, works of art, publishing houses, etc. How can it not have a cent? Further, your statement that "None of it heads off to the Vatican" is also incorrect. Peter's Pence is collected once a year, and is used for philanthropic purposes, but this can include the upkeep of museums in the Vatican. In the last decade, this amount ranged from around $75-100 million. Not trying to pick a fight, just want to point out some facts. – SMasters (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Or consider the following text from this source

In an interview published in Money Week, Cardinal Edmund C. Szoka, the Vatican's "finance minister", claims that The Vatican's assets are $5 billion. he adds that " Income to the Holy See from bishops' dioceses has more than tripled from 1990 levels, to $22 million in 2000." he also says, "That [$5 billion] doesn't include the Vatican City, which has a separate financial statement. If property is used for Church purposes and could never be sold, the value of it is considered 1lire, or nearly zero." The City's assets are "The revenues in 2000 were $180 million. The net surplus was $22 million, but that fluctuates greatly since we're responsible for the maintenance of all buildings, and it's extremely costly. One year we have a profit of $1 million and the next year $10 million.

(Yes, I know Yahoo Answers is not a reliable source but the text cites Cardinal Szoka in Money Week so presumably we can track down the original source.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a better source. It confirms some of the numbers in the Yahoo Answers post:

Szoka said that the Vatican's $5 billion in assets would not be affected by the scandals. When asked whether the Vatican would end up financially rescuing American dioceses financially wiped out by massive court settlements in the sexual abuse cases, Szoka said, It's not the practice of the Holy See to bail out dioceses.

First, it is not in accord with our structure. Second, we can't convey the idea that we will pay every time a diocese is in financial trouble. ... It's their responsibility, he said.

The financial structure of the Catholic Church is decentralized. Each of the 194 dioceses in America is autonomous. The roughly 20,000 churches within those dioceses raise an estimated $7.5 billion annually, which the dioceses use individually to pay salaries, run schools, and fund charitable institutions.

Once a year a collection known as Peter's Pence is taken up in each of those churches which is forwarded to the Vatican, and there are other small streams of money that run to the Holy See.

But of the Vatican's roughly $200 million annual budget, the American church contributes only about 5 percent, according to John Allen, who covers the Vatican for National Catholic Reporter.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong expression in caption

Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont (1095); the Pope announced the launch of a Holy War between Christians and Islam. It should read: ... between Christians and Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Spion (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead is too short

Leads should summarize the topic and can be up to 4 paragraphs long. The CC is a big topic, and it deserves all 4 paragraphs. It's hard to write a summary, especially when people disagree so much over the "true" nature of the CC, but writing us a summary is our job as editors. I've started to add material from Encyclopedia Britannica Online. It's a mainstream source, so we should be able to use it without controversy, and you are all welcome to follow the links and use the EBO yourselves to flesh out the lead (or the rest of the article). Leadwind (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead is indeed much too short, but i think past experience shows we should be aiming a good deal higher for sources than the EB. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

EB is a fine source, especially for a topic on which there are multiple viewpoints. Commonly accepted reference texts are especially valuable for determining the majority viewpoint (see WP:WEIGHT). Leadwind (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I added some material and it was deleted for NPOV. But it was cited to Encyclopedia Britannica Online, which is a neutral source, so I restored it. Leadwind (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

While I have no particular objection to what you added and don't see what would have been non-neutral about it, I feel the need to point out that just because its cited to an RS, it doesn't automatically make the addition NPOV.Farsight001 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Haldraper here. First of all, the EB is far from an ideal source. Second of all, several additions were made at one time without discussion. Finally, the additions are unnecessary, POV or peacock.

1) The Church claims a billion members, that is true and NPOV. Whether it actually has that many is a valid subject for debate, because of the inherent difficulaties in actually counting the members. There are also problems in determining who is to be counted as a Catholic, and who is not. Thus "claiming" is the best alternative here. Stating that it actually has a billion members would be POV, and would be an abuse of the sources we do have available.

2) The addition on St. Peter and Papal primacy is way too much detail for the lead of the article. It simply doesn't add much to the usefulness of the lead.

3) The philosophy and history addition is editorializing, pure and simple, and not encyclopedic. It's also loaded with peacock language. That it was accepted by the editorial board of EB is immaterial. They have their standards, and we have ours, and this addition is clearly not up to WP standards. It's pure puffery.

4) The addition on continuity is unnecessary in the lead. It's better explained in the text.

5) EB is definitely not the source to use for the biblical origin of Catholic doctrine. You need heavy-duty, industrial strength VERY reliable sources here. Besides, this does not belong in the lead. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the topic. This idea that certain aspects of the topic can't be covered in the lead is just weird. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. See WP:LEAD. I know that summaries are hard, especially with entrenched POVs on both sides, but it's our job to summarize the topic in the lead, as we're not doing it.

EBO is a fine source. According to WP:WEIGHT, we are to look to commonly accepted reference texts when determining the majority viewpoint, especially when there's controversy around the topic. What reference text is more commonly accepted? Where could we look for a better respected, more neutral source on this topic?

Maybe the material I added isn't the most important material to add, but the lead is way too short for such a big topic. How about a little help fleshing it out?

On the other hand, if this is one of those pages where good editing is going to founder on the shoals of POV editing, then maybe you should just tell me that now so I can take my neutral sources and go play somewhere else. Leadwind (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with 'fleshing out' the lead but that is different to POV-pushing and peacockery. Haldraper (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

@Leadwind: I also have nothing against the lead being fleshed out, but the material added must come from the body of the article itself, not from extraneous sources. I agree with Haldraper that your additions are POV and peacockery. This article should be free from apologetics.

The idea that certain material does not belong in the lead is far from "weird". The lead should briefly summarize the article, and some of the additions you made were way to detailed.

I agree with Haldraper and Johnbod that the EB is less than an ideal source. First of all, it's a tertiary source. Second of all, I am very loathe to see the EB used as a source for ethical reasons. The information in the EB is their work, and they deserve to be recompensated for it. Inserting material wholesale into WP articles would be basically doing an end run around their rights, and providing a "free" version of EB on the net under the banner of WP. That would be tantamount to theft. EB should therefore be used only as a last resort, regardless of its reliablity or reputation.

You misread WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with checking how EB or any othr encyclopedia handles a topic to make sure that the material presented on WP doesn't diverge from the generally accepted view. This can be pointed out in article talk pages, as well, to support your case. This does not mean that EB should be used as a material source in the body of the article itself. As I said, there are ethical issues to be considred.

As to the last paragraph of your last post, I find it very disturbing. You characterize your own editing as "good editing", and that of anyone who might disagree with you as "POV editing". Attributing hostile intentions to other editors is a grave violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Your threat to take your toys elsewhere is childish and ungentlemanly.

If you truly feel that your fellow editors are "THE ENEMY", than by all means feel free to "play somewhere else", as you say. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You won't be missed; we have tons of contentious editors to replace you. If, on the other hand, your comment was merely an unfortunate slip in a moment of passion, resolve to work together with other editors in an atmosphere of friendly cooperation and respect, and edit in accordance with what WP policies actually say, not what you want them to say.

I also think you're overestimating the urgency of expanding the lead. Perhaps you should stand back and smell the roses for a spell, and think over any eventual changes you want to make to the lead. The sky is not falling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a reminder about civility. And thanks for offering a "moral objection" to using EBO. I've heard lots of editors try to keep the EBO at bay, but I've never heard that reasoning before. As for editing this page, I can read the handwriting on the wall. You win. Leadwind (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to this party. I especially like Dominus' point about the value of civil discussion and maintaining perspective.

In general, I agree with those who supported reversion of Leadwind's edits with the one exception that I think the point of papal primacy is very appropriate for the lead. It is arguably the one thing that separates the Catholic Church from the Orthodox and Anglican churches.

I think the EB/EBO are very useful resources for determining what topics we should cover in an article but I agree with the others that we should not cite any tertiary source unless it is really necessary. Anything in the EB/EBO probably came from some secondary source. We should find an appropriate secondary source and cite it. I think Dominus' point about using EB work is not wrong but a little off-the-mark. We can't lift the text verbatim and we shouldn't cite it. However, it is perfectly reasonable to use it as a guide for what is important and what is not. Also, it's important to note that just because the EB makes a point somewhere in their article, that fact doesn't mean the point has to be made in the lead of our article. It just means that we might want to consider mentioning it in our article as well. (Question for Leadwind: were all the points that you inserted made in the beginning of the EBO article?)

I think the point about philosophy and art is important to make and I could even envision making that point in the lead. We used to have a section on the impact of the Catholic Church on civilization that got deleted for being too POV in favor of the Church. It is a loss that that section is gone. It should have been rewritten not just tossed onto the trash heap. However, I do agree with the others that the specific text that Leadwind inserted was too much in the way of puffery and peacock language.

The bit about continuity, Scriptural basis and the institution of things like Scriptural canon, etc. in the 2nd and 3rd centuries has some value although as written by Leadwind has a lot of POV and needs more detailed exposition in the body of the article. I don't think we can do these ideas justice in the lead.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard, yes, the stuff I added was from the beginning of the article. The very first sentence says that the CC "has been the decisive spiritual force in the history of Western civilization." Pretty powerful stuff. To my mind, it's POV if we don't give the CC its due. If we try to say that the CC is just another church, when it has historically been the most powerful religious institution the world has ever known, then that false equality is POV. (Of course, being a decisive spiritual force in Western civilization doesn't mean that the pope really is Christ's vicar, or that there is a purgatory, or whatever.) Now believe me, I'm no fan of the pope or of Catholic teaching, but when I edit I will sometimes say something positive about something that's not my pet topic. Really, it's true. I sometimes even add information to a page that I personally disagree with, provided it comes from a solid source. That seems like good editing to me.

As for the ban on citing tertiary sources, I've never seen it in any policy I've read. If someone would rather see a secondary source than a tertiary one, they're welcome to find a secondary source that says the same thing and replace the citation. But deleting what EBO says strictly because it's from a tertiary source doesn't have any basis in policy. What I do know is that lots of editors are adamant that they don't want EBO anywhere near their favorite topics. I like EBO because it's an authoritative source for mainstream viewpoints. Plenty of other editors hate EBO for exactly that same reason.

Honestly, I thought that my bit about the scriptural canon, etc., would be challenged by the defenders of the CC. Strangely, it seems to have been challenged instead by people who think it's too positive toward the CC.

Anyone who's interested in an authoritative mainstream view of the CC should read the article. I'm sure the POV editors on both sides of the CC divide will find things they don't like in it, which is really my point. Our page here would be better if it matched the EBO article more closely. Leadwind (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(Sigh) - I'd unwatched this page only to return to find the lead still being discussed. Thought that had been resolved months ago by re-instating an older version from the history. Will have to dig to find that, but that's my suggestion. Also, only scanned this discussion, but agree with Johnbod - we need to use secondary sources and not the look at other tertiary sources as a model for this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to restore the lead again. Will wait a few days - if no objections will restore. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Transition

A new discussion on this will open when sources are not only mentioned but properly cited.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Even though the Diocese of Rome was indeed founded by Saint Peter, there is a fairly recognizable transition from Early Christianity to the Roman Catholic Church proper. The Article already mentions that by the 200s (3rd Century) AD, the Bishop of Rome served as a "court of appeals" for disputes between other Bishops. However, being a mediator to settle disputes is different from being the boss in a more absolute sense, and in the case of the Pope the latter happened in the 300s AD. To illustrate this point, the first Pope to have a coronation ceremony as part of his investiture was Sylvester I in 314. Just in case anyone chooses to interpret this as some kind of Reformed attack on the Roman Church, I'll have you know that I'm a Roman Catholic myself. Wikipedians really shouldn't take things personally on the site, but I just thought I should cover my bases. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC) First, no one has made any statement that your comments are a "Reformed attack". Now, are you suggesting a change to the article? If so, please provide reliable sources beyond your own interpretations or your synthesis of sources to reach your own conclusions. Cresix (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC) I knew no one had made any such statements. I was being pre-emptive, because people can be weird about some things. Now, as a matter of fact I do have sources that aren't simply my own interpretations. Namely, I have Hunt and Collins (my old History 115 textbook and an article by a former Nun, respectively). My suggestion for the Article is to place a section between "Early Christianity" and "Late Antiquity" on the centralization that marks this transition. According to Hunt, for example, the Greek "Pappas" and Latin "Papa" were initially used for various Bishops, and not until the 4th Century after legalization of Christianity were these terms reserved solely for the Bishop of Rome. Hunt also says that Bishops gained much more decision making power on matters other than whom to ordain as clergy (initially their main job and still something only a Bishop can do) around the same time. So, there's all that going for the idea of a section between "Early Christianity" and "Late Antiquity," not to mention the chronological gap it would fill. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I'm not convinced we need a whole section. This article is already plenty long (96kb). Perhaps we could have a sentence or two in this article with a fuller exposition in other articles such as Early Christianity, History of early Christianity, History of the Catholic Church, History of the Papacy, etc. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) We need more than a statement that "Pappas was used for various Bishops" or that "Bishops gained more decision-making power" to then make a concluding statement that the Bishop of Rome was no "more than a mediator". Don't misunderstand; I'm not challenging anything at this point; I'm just not convinced that your conclusions aren't a synethesis of the sourced information that you have. To simplify, if a source states that Fact A and Fact B are true, you can't necessarily reach your own conclusion that Conclusion C follows from those two facts. You need a source to specifically back up Conclusion C. Otherwise it's synthesis of facts to reach your own conclusions. If you can give us the specific statements in your source(s) to support the speficic conclusions that the Bishop of Rome was not "more than a mediator", that might help. I also agree with Pseudo-Richard that this detail, if properly sourced, belongs in another related article. Catholicism is a very broad topic, and Catholic Church only presents an overview. Even some of the sub-articles have their own sub-articles. I think if you review all of the available information on Wikipedia, you'll probably find information related to this issue already addressed. There has been a lot of debate throughout the literature about the supremecy of the Pope in the early Church for many years. I'd be surprise if some of it hasn't found its way into Wikipedia. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC) The argument that the Bishop of Rome was "no more than a mediator" is sourceable. It's not a novel synthesis. It's just that this sort of thing should be covered lightly in one or two sentences that also link to the appropriate detailed article. Wikipedia is not paper. We don't have to cram every point into this article. Cresix writes: "I'd be surprise if some of it hasn't found its way into Wikipedia." You mean like the articles Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Primacy of Simon Peter? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC) The early history section was well-sourced when I last looked. Perhaps it's changed - I'd taken this page off my watchlist for a period. I agree with Richard that this needs to be a summary and not much can be added. The article is long and it covers 2000 years of history. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, Richard, that's exactly what I meant. And in taking a quick look at those articles, it appears that those articles are detailed and well-sourced. I'm not saying nothing new can be added, but it would have to be something very scholarly and, most likely, something recently written. I never doubted whether challenges to the Pope's primacy could be sourced (as I said, that has been a major issue for a very long time), just whether The Mysterious El Willstro (talk · contribs) had any new information that was not a synthesis of previous information. Cresix (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Speaking of questionable syntheses, what do you mean by "challenges to the Pope's primacy"? Even assuming they were, Popes between Linus and Miltiades being nothing more than mediator's outside the Diocese of Rome itself does not mean that the supremacy of Popes from Sylvester I onward isn't as it should be. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure if this line of discussion should continue as it borders on the type of discussion that belongs on a forum and Wikipedia is not a forum. The Catholics assert Primacy of Simon Peter and Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. All other Christians dispute it. The Orthodox, in particular, argue that the Bishop of Rome never had supreme authority and was only given primacy of honor. All of this is discussed in the articles Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and Primacy of Simon Peter. This article is not the place to get into a detailed discussion of the topic and this Talk Page is not the appropriate place to discuss it either. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Agree, this is not a forum, and the discussion here has strayed from possible additions or changes to articles related to Catholicism. Cresix (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Mysterious, I don't mean to shut you down. It's just that article talk pages are intended solely for discussions about improving the article. See WP:TALK. If the idea that the Pope's primacy is disputed (even after Sylvester I) is truly new to you and you are not just soapboxing, you are welcome to continue the dialogue on my talk page. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Was the idea completely new to me? No, I know more of the Church's history than most of the general public. (I'm a convert, for one thing.) I was actually talking about at least a short New Section, if only to fill what appears to be a chronological gap of several centuries in the Article as it stands. (Sidenote: The primacy of Saint Peter himself can't be disputed by anyone who reads the Gospels [see John 6; I forget the exact verse]. The thing is about his immediate successors, Linus in Rome [the 2nd Pope] and Evodius in Antioch [the 2nd Syriac Orthodox Patriarch], neither of whom had the supremacy of their predecessor except in their own dioceses.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Let us move beyond generalities to specifics. Perhaps you could propose specific text that you think should be added to the current article text. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Agree, specific text (along with sources) would be very helpful in determining whether it belongs in Catholic Church or a related article. Cresix (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My revert of Majoreditor's edit to the lead

Sorry, but there is a major POV issue related to the words "church", "branch" and "denomination". See Branch theory for a better explanation. The Catholic Church rejects the notion that it is one of several legitimate branches or denominations of the Church of Christ on earth. It asserts that there is only one legitimate Church on earth and the Pope is the leader of it. In this view, all other Christians are members of this Church; they simply are unwilling to acknowledge the leadership of the Pope and the correctness of the Catholic Church's doctrines.

Now, I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is right or wrong in asserting this view. I'm simply saying that this is their view and we should not introduce the topic by using words which inherently presume an opposing view. We can debate whether it is worthwhile to treat the issue in the body of the article text but I think it would be a distraction to get into it in the lead. (NB: If we were to discuss this in the lead, I would propose that it be done in a Note rather than in the actual text of the lead.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not strictly correct. In particular, there is a distinction between the "schismatic" Orthodox churches & the "heretical" Protestant etc ones. The former are part of the "legitimate Church", as you term it, but seperated, and the latter are officially not. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Protestant groups aren't even churches, are they? They just denominations, right? Leadwind (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That depends on how you define "church". The Catholic Church may view Protestant denominatins as imperfect, heretical variants of the one, true Church. But if you try telling most Protestants that they don't belong to a church, you're likely to get some serious disagreement. Cresix (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@Johnbod... yes, I knew I was glossing over stuff but I was in a hurry and I just wanted to make at least some effort to explain why I was reverting Majoreditor for whom I have a lot respect but who had gotten it wrong with his edit.

@Leadwind... I am perhaps on thin ice here but I am fairly sure that the very term "denominations" is a Protestant term which the Catholic Church rejects. It makes no sense to talk about "Protestant denominations" any more than it talks to talk of an Arian denomination. You are either catholic and orthodox (note the lowercase letters denoting theological belief not ecclesiology) or you're not. For the most part, the Orthodox and Anglican churches are considered both catholic and orthodox. (Well, some parts of the Anglican Communion may not be considered catholic and orthodox viz. the parts that sanction ordination of women and homosexuals.)

Most priests (and therefore bishops and patriarchs) ordained in the Orthodox and Anglican churches are considered to be validly ordained by virtue of apostolic succession. (NB: Only some Anglican priests can be said to have been validly ordained in accordance with apostolic succession but that problem could be dealt with easily if it were so desired.) In the eyes of the Catholic Church, Protestant ministers are not validly ordained because the Protestants have not preserved apostolic succession because (guess what) they reject that concept as having any value. However, union with any Protestant group could be easily achieved by having a Catholic (or Orthodox) bishop ordain the ministers of that group as priests. It's only a matter of both sides wanting to achieve that union. Hah! Did I say "only"? Much easier said than done.)

Thus, Orthodox and Anglican churches could fairly easily achieve union with the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church sees little or no theological basis for continuing the schism (although some Orthodox apparently do assert that irreconcilable differences do exist). It's only a question of submitting to the authority of the Pope. (Hah! Did I say "only" again? Still much easier said than done.)

Nonetheless, when we talk about the "church" that Jesus Christ established on earth via Simon Peter ("on this rock I will found my church"), the Catholic Church considers all Christians (including Protestants) to be a member of that church. The fact that some Christians hold heretical beliefs or follow leaders who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome does not mean they are not members of the "Church of Christ on earth". The Bishop of Rome still considers them part of his flock (i.e. his pastoral responsibility) even if they don't consider him their spiritual leader. (OK... I'm not sure about that last sentence but I don't think I'm too far off in principle) Protestants are still "brothers and sisters in Christ" to the Catholics.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Since around 1970, the Catholic Church has had an official policy of referring to Protestant "churches" as denominations, right? Anyone? Leadwind (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is useful to read this section in the Protestantism article. There is a source provided for the first paragraph (Reference #27). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Golly. I made the change from "church" to "denomination" for stylistic reasons. It's clunky to have the word "church" appear three times in the opening sentence. The term"denomination" is acceptable in this situation; please see its definition ("an organized group of religious congregations"). It's certainly not the only Christian church. Majoreditor (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, Majoreditor, I guess you're right on this one. Leadwind (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sytlistic problem but I still disagree as to the use of either "branch" or "denomination". However, I think I'll wait for other editors to chime in. It's not a huge issue to me but it might be for other people. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with PR here. "Denomination" sounds bizarre when applied to the RCC. It has a specific meaning that simply does not apply in this case. "Branch" is likewise unacceptable for ecclesiological reasons. Even "church" has its problems beyond mere style. I propose using the term "communion", because its precisely what the RCC is, the group of churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree both that the language is awkward and that the term denomination is inappropriate. I'm not sure that using communion is much better either, since most readers will likely think of the sacrament ... that being said, the language needs to change and communion is the least objectionable so far. What about just using the non-specific "group?"Eldamorie (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Majoreditor has pointed out that "denomination" just means "an organized group of religious congregations" without the implication that it's other than the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, so why can't we use it? Do we have a source for the interpretation that the CC isn't a denomination in the general sense? Leadwind (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick one I have found. I have seen it in many places. Kenneth D. Whitehead, How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary "Christian denomination"--not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.

Majoreditor admits that he made the change just because the word Church was used multiple times. There is no reason to have what many see as a POV term when it isn't needed. Sometimes clarity needs to trump style. It is pretty easy to understand that in an article titled "Catholic Church" the word church is going to appear a lot.Marauder40 (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@Majoreditor & Leadwind: The problem is that denomination does NOT mean simply "an organized group of religious congregations", and it certainly does have MAJOR ecclesiastical implications. See Denominationalism for more in-depth information on how the term is understood. We may often, in casual speech, refer to the RCC as a "denomination", especially in relationship to other religious groups, but in this case, precision is of the utmost importance because we are defining the RCC. Defining it as a "denomination" would be grossly incorrect.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Err ... no, DM. The term "denomination" is not the same as Denominationalism. See Christian denomination to see how the word is commonly applied to various Christian communities, including the Catholic Church. As you admit, the term denomination is commonly applied to Catholicism. It's fine to use in this context. The commonly used word "denomination" is not shorthand for branch theory - or any other theory. As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Although I think "denomination" is fien to use in the lead, I'm open to suggestions for other terms to use - "Christian community", "congregation", or the like. I'm also willing to consider requesting a comment if we feel that we need outside opinions. Certainly there is a better way to craft the opening sentence rather than repreating the word "church" over and over. Majoreditor (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"...the term denomination is commonly applied to Catholicism" – by non-Catholics, not by Catholics (especially outside the U.S.). Catholics do not regard the Catholic church as a denomination, as pointed out by Pseudo-Richard. – SMasters (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "denomination" is applied to Catholicism and Catholics by a variety of respected publishing sources. A quick check of JSTOR or Google Scholar will show that scores of scholarly and government journals refer to Catholicism as a denomination - including the Review of Religious Research, Journal of Social Issues, American Journal of Sociology, Journal of Real Estate Finance, European Journal of Population, Neurology, Journal of Biological Sciences, Journal of Genetic Psychiatry, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Public Opinion Quarterly, U.S. Public Health Reports ... I could go on, but suffice it to say that there are many examples. A quick scan of Google Books reveals similar results. You'll find Catholicism refered to as a denomination by sources dating back to at least 1866, published in Catholic World, a publication affiliated with the Paulist Fathers.

It's clear that the Catholic Church is quite commonly referred to as a denomination by a compelling number of academic, governmental, religious and secular sources. The term isn't used in a prejudicial or overtly POV manner by the vast majority of these sources.

As I mentioned earlier, several possible terms would be fine to use; I'm not wed to using "denomination". I will ponder the possibilities tomorrow. Majoreditor (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems like usage is inconsistent on WP depending on editor affiliation. After checking out Christian denominations which explicitly names the RC Church a denomination, as well as other similar article, it seems like denomination would be the right term, in that it reflects the treatment across the project. Eldamorie (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

@Eldamorie: How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. Christian denominations specifically states "Roman Catholics do not describe themselves as a denomination", and Denominationalism states "the Catholic Church considers itself the original Church (and as such, "pre-denominational") not a denomination"Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Quoting directly from Christian denominations: "The Roman Catholic Church is the largest denomination with over 1.1 billion members." I'd agree that Catholics generally don't describe themselves as a denomination, but it's still an appropriate term to use to describe them. I'd also say that describing the RCC as a denomination is not denominationalism itself - it is not implying that RC Christianity is the same as Protestant Christianity, just that they are both different flavours of Christianity itself. I'd say that the denomination terminology is innapropriate, if this article was being written from an RC POV then I'd say that denomination might not be appropriate... but the sources describe RC as a denomination. Eldamorie (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this debate is starting to go around in circles. In brief, the discussion comes down to "common usage refers to the RCC as a denomination but the RCC rejects that appellation as ecclesiologically incorrect". There is not currently an effort to correct all places in Wikipedia where the common usage definition of denomination is used to characterize the RCC. However, there is a sense among some editors of this article that, in the article about the RCC itself, the common usage of "denomination" should not be used casually to refer to the RCC.

My personal position is that I would accede to its use if a note were added explaining the RCC's view. Alternatively, we could have a section that summarizes Branch theory and Denominationalism and explains why the RCC rejects these views. However, I think it would just be easier to avoid using the word "denomination" altogether. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't doubt Majoreditor's good faith, and I respect him as an editor. I sincerely apologize to him for being brusque. The word would not have been so jarring if it had not been in the very first sentence of the lede of the article. I am not advocating changing the word in all places in Wikipedia, either. It's just in this place, it stuck out like a sore thumb.

I'd like to repeat that the technically correct term in this case is "communion", but I'm not at all sure if it's all that much of an improvement over "church" in this case. I'm not particularly fond of "group", though, nor of "Christian community" or "congregation"Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pseudo-Richard and Dominus Vobisdu. I see nothing wrong with the word "church". To keep it simple, just avoid using the word denomination. As has been mentioned, for this particular article, RCC does not see itself as a denomination. Let's just keep this out. Especially in the lead. – SMasters (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Failing to use denomination is itself a concession to the desire to write this article for a Roman Catholic POV; it is unnecessary and undesirable. Those who want to write from a Sympathetic Point of View should go find Wikiinfo.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem with an NPOV treatment of Branch theory and Denominationalism in the article body. I just think that it is wrong to assert the non-Catholic view of the controversy in the lead without providing any explanation that the controversy exists and what the Catholic view is. We need not accept that the Catholic view is right; we just need to present it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Child abuse scandals

I would make the edit myself, but the page is locked. There should be a sub-heading in the contents for this issue - presumably it would be enough just to add a new heading in above the existing paragraph at the end of the modern history section of the article. I can imagine this would be one of those hotly contested wiki pages, with plenty of vested interests on both sides, but the issue's pretty much the only thing of note to non-Catholics that has happened to the church since the change of Pope. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Dave

I think doing that would fall to WP:Recentism. The Church has a 2000 year history, and as big a deal as people are making out of the sex abuse scandal today, it truly is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. There is a Catholic sex abuse cases article where such information can go. This article should have a link to it at least, but it already did last I saw.Farsight001 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Farsight001 on all counts. I don't mean to minimize the importance of these tragic events, and I do believe that the Church often has failed miserably in dealing with them, but Catholic Church is a parent article to many subarticles, including Catholic sex abuse cases. Any well-sourced, balanced information that is not already in that article should go there rather than Catholic Church. I also don't agree that the sex abuse scandals are "pretty much the only thing of note to non-Catholics that has happened to the church since the change of Pope". Sexual abuse and other sexual misconduct by clergy are not limited to Catholicism; but Catholicism gets the most press because the Catholic Church is so big, so it can seem like that's the only thing on people's minds. But I think if you ask the typical non-Catholic what is their first thought related to Catholicism, the sex abuse issue will not be the "only thing of note". Cresix (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd disagree about whether it's what people think of when you say Catholic, but I can well believe there are different attitudes in parts of the world where Catholicism is more widespread than here. I also understand a) that you must get a lot of anti-Catholics who just want to smear the church and b) your point about recentism. I was suggesting that the balance you've struck isn't far off being right - in fact, is very good - but could be swayed slightly with the addition of a section heading. Having checked the contents section of the article, I realise it would be out of place there. Still, I feel the balance isn't quite right and would be happy to continue to discuss how it might be bettered.

Perhaps it's a difference in perspective between Catholics and non-Catholics? Obviously to someone who is affected by it, the 2nd Vatican Council (for example) is an important event in the life of the Catholic church, but to an outsider, it will barely register - whereas the sex abuse scandals were all over the papers. So where a Catholic might read the page and feel the issue has been given the weight it deserves, a non-Catholic might (entirely legitimately) feel otherwise - because to the different groups, the issues differ in relative importance.

Is a compromise possible? Is it possible to make a title/heading for that section to highlight it slightly more without putting it in the contents list? I'm not an expert Wiki editor, but presumably one can replicate the formatting of a sub-heading with bold/underline tags?94.170.107.247 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

94.170.107.247, part of the problem is that, if we create a new section for the topic of child sexual abuse, it encourages editors to add to it. Sections on controversial topics tend to grow in size as editors on one side of the controversy keep adding in their own pet issues and editors on the other side insist on responding resulting in the text spiraling out of control. In the past, the section on child sexual abuse has grown to the point where it had become disproportionate to the importance of the topic (though it's clearly a matter of opinion as to how important the topic is). While I tend to think it is a fairly important topic, I don't think creating a separate section for it is a good idea. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, call me Dave, please. 94.170.107.247 is so unwieldy :)

Anyway, back to the point. I understand your practical objection to the extra section, or the appearance of one, or whatever it would be, but I still think the balance is a little too far towards de-emphasis - would you agree with that in principle, since your objection appears to be practical in nature? 94.170.107.247 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC) dave

(edit conflict) Hi Dave. You might want to consider creating a user account if you are going to participate in the Wikipedia project for any significant period of time. It's hard to remember IP addresses and they are so impersonal.

I personally think the sexual abuse scandals are very important. I have put significant effort into documenting the scandals in more detailed articles such as Catholic sexual abuse cases and its subsidiary articles so I am not dismissing their importance. However, we have to ask whether the scandals are more important than the Inquisition, the Reformation or Vatican II. In terms of raw word count, Vatican II gets less coverage in this article than the sexual abuse scandals and yet it has had and will continue to have a much more significant effect on the Church than the sexual abuse scandals. The sexual abuse scandals will eventually blow over. Most of them are related to crimes committed in the 60s and 70s with some continuing into the 80s and 90s. Vatican II was and is a sea change in Catholicism that has affected Catholicism for the last half a century and will continue to influence it for at least another half a century or more. It's not likely that we will see another council anytime soon so, whether you like it or hate it, that is the council that defines the Catholic Church today. I cannot see writing more about the sexual abuse cases unless we also write more about these other important topics.

Finally, this article is currently about 96kb long. It used to almost double that size before we decided to cut it back per WP:SIZE. When it was that long, it might have made sense to say a little bit more than we currently do but, given the current length, I would not add any more to what we already have on the sexual abuse cases.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Without belaboring this issue, I'll make one quick response to the statement regarding "different attitudes in parts of the world where Catholicism is more widespread than here". I'm not sure where "here" refers to. I live in a region in which Catholics are a small minority of the Christian population, and I'm basing my impressions (albeit an informal observation) on comments I hear in my region. Again, I'm not minimizing the issue; I just don't think it's at the top of the list of what non-Catholics think about Catholicism. Also, I agree with Richard that "controversy" and "criticism" sections attract undue WP:WEIGHT, whether for a religous group or any other large group or individuals with very public profiles. I've seen that a lot in articles about politicians or TV personalities: create a "Controversies" section, and very quickly it can double the length of the article. I'll also disagree that the balance leans toward "de-emphasis", considering that there is an entire article on the sex abuse scandals. As I said earlier, Catholic Church is a parent article to many articles; it can only touch on the highlights. And in the 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church, there have been a number of controversies far larger than the current sex abuse scandals. Cresix (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's not go back and forth too much more on the main issue - and as interesting as it would be to debate how Catholicism is currently viewed, this isn't the place :)

I still feel that something about the way the issue is handled doesn't quite sit right. I might even feel more comfortable if the paragraph in question was actually shorter, and merely served to introduce a link to the main article on the subject. I understand that it's just a brief summary of the main points - rather a good one, at that - and I also understand, now they've been explained, your reasons for treating the issue as you have, but my first impression was that the issue had been glossed over. I would suggest that it's important to try to avoid the appearance of doing so, even if there are very good reasons why the appearance is as it is.

Anyway, I've said my piece, and if you don't feel it's worth acting on, that's up to you. If you'd like practical suggestions or clarification, I'll happily oblige, but I won't argue the issue itself any more unless you think there's something we haven't covered. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

Thanks for your comments. I think if the sex abuse issue has been "glossed over", then dozens (perhaps hundreds) of issues have been glossed over in Catholic Church, but many of them are covered reasonably well in other articles related to Catholicism. I know the sex abuse scandals are a major issue right now (whether they're at the top I won't continue to debate), but in the 2,000 year history of the church, they will be a blip. As one (of many) comparisons, currently the sex abuse issue gets about as much mention in the article as the doctrine of transubstantiation; there have been volumes written on transubstantiation, and it has been a point of elaborate debate for hundreds of years. If there is a Wikipedia in 100 years, I suspect little to nothing will be mentioned about sex abuse, but transubstantiation will continue to be a major issue. Cresix (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To the 2000-year stare, Iconoclasm is a blip - but this article mentions it too. We could easily shorten the paragraph on the abuse scandal, but we should not remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. It lasted 132 years - 7% of the church's history, & was probably the main driver of the split with the Eastern Church. Hardly a blip, and in historical perspective more important than the abuse scandals. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're both right. However, I think there is a problem with the "equal weight" hypothesis. Humans are myopic by nature. The car accident you got into 10 years ago is not as present in your mind as the moving violation you got 10 minutes ago. Things that happened recently are just more important to you.

This article is about the Catholic Church as it is today. History is important but only as an explanation of how it got to be where it is today. Detailed discussion of historical events such as the iconoclasm controversy belong in History of the Catholic Church or History of Christianity. Discussion of contemporary phenomena such as the sexual abuse scandal should be given more weight in this article although a two sentence mention and a link to the detailed article is adequate treatment.

Finally, we should bear in mind that WP:RECENT is an essay rather than a policy or guideline. The essay acknowledges that recentism has positive as well as negative aspects. It suggests a "ten-year test" as a thought experiment and, at the same time, counsels against attempting to foretell the future. Ten years from now, it is likely that a scandal that has spanned some 25 years will still be worthy of note. (NB: I'm not saying the scandal will still be continuing ten years from now. I'm just saying that people will still be aware of it and its effects will still be felt ten years from now.) A 100 years from now, it may just be a "blip" but so will many, many articles about current personalities, companies and technologies.

Bottom line: I think the current treatment is just about right. I would entertain expanding it by maybe a sentence if someone could make a good case for what that sentence would be. I don't really see how it could be shortened.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't insist on it, the last sentence could go or be trimmed; both halves of it are merely what is expected when an institution has a major embarrasment: It announces clean-up measures after the fact, which it says will work, and victims' groups call them insufficent. News at eleven. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)