Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Once Catholic, Always Catholic

Or in Latin, semel Catholicus, semper Catholicus. I just came across a post by a canon lawyer on the Catholic Answers forums that supports my earlier position (bold added):

"http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=106041" (post 9, by cameron_lansing):

It would be the traditional consensus that Catholicity is not lost objectively even by a formal (i.e., not just material but also intended or volitional) act of defection or excommunication. These result in impaired communion with the Church. Hence, with apologies to those who have heard it before, semel Catholicus, semper Catholicus.

...

So as to the question, "If someone was baptized Catholic, received the sacraments of Communion and Confirmation, then later they renounce their Catholic faith, are they still considered Catholic by the CC?", the answer is yes, and Catholic baptism or admission by the profession of faith is all that would be needed in view of canon 96. Catholic baptism alone is sufficient. The reception of a person already baptized has the same juridic effect. This also anticipates how we would answer your last scenario later.

From the canonical point of view, not even excommunication renders a Catholic no longer Catholic. This is not an effect of that penalty among those listed in canon 1331. Clearly those, it results in a loss of the full communion which is treated in canon 205, but the fact remains that such an effect is not given in the law.

The formal act of defection mentioned in canon 1117 merely proceeds to except the person from certain ecclesiastical laws though, for example, that of canonical form of marriage (canon 1127), the prohibition against marrying a non Catholic unless there is express permission (canon 1124). Tribunals or other Church authorities often have to evaluate these situations to see if a marriage case requires the ordinary process for nullity or not. However, the law mentions no effect of becoming a non Catholic for the person who defects by a formal act.

-- Cat Whisperer 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if, in the obvious interpretation of what Cat Whisperer quotes, John Cameron is right or wrong. Has he failed to distinguish between the juridical and the sacramental fields? The text of the Pontifical Council on Legislative Texts states explicitly that, for someone who formally, in the prescribed manner, abandons (defects from, leaves ...) the Church, "the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection" (No. 7). But the words "abandonment" and "defection" must have some meaning. And if they do not mean severing the juridical bond with the visible Catholic Church, what do they mean? Whatever the meaning is, it is serious enough to require explicit mention of the act of defection in the registry of the person's baptism (No. 6).

In another posting in the same forum, to which he provides a link in the posting Cat Whisperer quotes, John Cameron does seem to distinguish between the sacramental and the juridical effects:

"Baptism clearly incorporates us into Christ but there are ecclesial dimensions as well. When somone is baptized, that person is also incorporated into the Church, "which subsists" in the Catholic Church. This is an intrinsic intention connected to Catholic baptism. Neither incorporation (into Christ and into the Church) can even be erased because the sacrament imposes a spiritual character, a change in being (a fancier term being "ontological" change). (It's why even after laicization, a priest remains a priest, the "indelible mark" and what all.)

"When anyone is baptized by another Church (the Orthodox) or another ecclesial community (Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. for example), that person is similarly understood to be enrolled or ascribed into that Church or ecclesial community. We understand that baptism thus has a permanent spiritual effect making a connection not only to Christ but also the Church."

Though John Cameron there denies that the juridical effect can be annulled, he does seem to recognize a distinction between the sacramental and the juridical effect, and so to recognize the possibility of the sacramental bond existing (cf. the Pontifical Council's text) without the juridical connection: this juridical connection, he agrees, does not exist for Orthodox, Anglicans etc.; so it follows that it is at least theoretically possible for it not to exist either for someone who formally abandons, defects from, leaves, the Catholic Church.

It is juridical visible membership that we are concerned with in this article, since the article is about the concrete visible organizational Catholic Church, not about a merely sacrament-based body comprising every baptized person in the world. Indeed, did not the Second Vatican Council speak of the Catholic Church we are concerned with as being governed by the Pope and the bishops in communion with him? So if the Church recognizes that someone is not bound by its laws (be that person a Lutheran or someone who has defected from the Catholic Church) it seems logical to conclude that that person is not a juridical member of the Catholic Church.

John Cameron does at least quote a canonist who states explicitly that excommunication is not expulsion from the Church, for he says that "The Church does not expel persons from its midst." Perhaps that will clear up any lingering doubts about whether excommunication is expulsion from the Church. Lima 21:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Church does not expel persons from its midst - All I have to say is, whatever. There are plenty of instances in history when a pontiff and councils specifically stated that X person or people were outside the Body of Christ. Lostcaesar 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that John Cameron (himself a canon lawyer) is reporting the traditional consensus of canon lawyers, not his own personal opinion.

I think that separating the sacramental and juridical concepts makes the conversation clearer, and hopefully we are agreed that the sacramental bond cannot be broken. However, my contention is that the juridical bond cannot be broken either. In the Eastern Rite canon law, there is no concept of "defection by a formal act" at all. In the Latin Rite code, this concept was introduced in 1983 to deal with the situation of Catholics "leaving" the Church and then not feeling bound to marry in the Church. The effect of defecting by a formal act is limited to three canons relating to marriage law (that is, above and beyond the consequences of the automatic excommunication due to apostacy). Defection is recorded in the baptismal register so that tribunals dealing with annulment cases will know whether the person was bound by canonical form or not. -- Cat Whisperer 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that John Cameron (I am grateful for the correction to the name I gave him) is reporting what he thinks is the traditional consensus of canon lawyers, who only this year have begun to have something concrete to work on with regard to what constitutes a formal defection from the Catholic Church.

The Latin Code of Canon Law may mention explicitly only three marriage-related effects, but it seems to me to recognize that leaving the Catholic Church can be a reality that must be taken into account when departure is not merely deduced (deductions can be questioned) from behaviour, such as joining a non-Catholic community, but is instead indisputably established because of a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church. The first paragraph of the letter of the Pontifical Council indicates that, while those whose departure can only be "deduced" "continue to be bound by merely ecclesiastical laws", those who formally defect are no longer subject to the laws that only bind members of the Church. In other words, they are no longer "governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him". Thus, at least as I see it, leaving the Catholic Church can indeed be a reality. Lima 06:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that sometimes things get to the point where even the damned in hell could be considered still members of the Church and subject to ecclesiastical laws — if this situation ever obtains from said criteria then I think we have entered into absurtidy; it certainly no longer means anything to make the relevant distinctions, anyway. Lostcaesar 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

AIDS/Uganda

I brought this up almost 4 months ago, Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive6#The_Catholic_Church_.26_AIDS. Uganda uses an ABC approach (abstinence, be faithful, condoms). The Catholic Church is opposed to C. The image is from the WHO, that no where on it's site mentions the RCC in regards to Uganda. Searching the web, I haven't found many sources to support this idea. Seems like OR. Because there is an A in ABC, and the RCC supports A, they must have something to do with it, right? I propose removing the image, unless the sourcing can improve (even the most recent citation addition doesn't mention the church). Seems like a case to give credit by association.--Andrew c 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be OR. On the other hand, the UN and religious officials worked together in Uganda to propose a solution that was appropriate for the culture. Here are reputable Catholic sources discussing Uganda: [1], [2],

[3]. And the UN article does mention cooperation with local religious groups including the RCC:

"Our education campaigns not only addressed AIDS and health-related issues," said Dr. Rwomushana, "but also risky cultural practices. HIV control was made an integral part of the country's national education and poverty eradication policies." One of the biggest challenges, according to Dr. Rwomushana, was how to campaign against AIDS and risky behaviour without upsetting cultural and religious sensibilities. "We adopted a policy of inclusiveness that avoids confrontation with the different social and religious groups," he said. "The fact that the chairman of the Uganda AIDS Commission, Halem Imana, is a retired Catholic bishop is a demonstration of this."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Well you see, the first link mentioned Uganda once, and is strange because it glosses over the fact that Uganda promotes Condom use in addition to abstience and faithfulness. The second link clearly explains that the government and AIDS workers were sensitive to the local population's religion, doing different things for Muslims and Catholics. Doesn't say anything about the RCC doing these things, only that the government tried to accomidate a multireligious outlook in their sex education, AIDS reduction programs. Finally the quote, says basically the same thing. Just because the Chairman of the Uganda AIDS Commission is a retired Catholic bishop, information about Uganda and AIDS somehow fits in the RCC article? I think that is stretching notability some. Thus, I still support removing the image from this article. The image is not specifically Catholic, and doesn't relate to the surrounding article content.--Andrew c 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the material should be properly sourced and the image should accurately reflect both the caption and the context. Seems obvious enough. However, it seems equally obvious that abstinence reduces the spread of aids (just think about it). Surely there has to be a proper source for such a simple statement, no? Lostcaesar 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a little off topic. Yes, theoretically not having sex is one way to not spread AIDS. Of course. But does promoting abstience to the public prevent the spread of AIDS. There is a big difference between simply promoting abstience and populations actually practicing abstience. That said, reading through the "Catholic teachings on human sexuality" section again (which, keep in mind, is a subsection of "Controversial Catholic teachings and discipline"), I feel it is decent. It presents criticism, responses, and official positions of the Church. However, it says nothing about Uganda. Including an image from the WHO that is not specifically of Catholics seems misleading and simply off topic. --Andrew c 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I will say that I myself generally am not a large fan of over ambitious captions, and am also a stickler for sources properly being represented in the text, so I have nothing to say about this specific point not in accord with you. However I think there could be a way to express the essence of what the caption wants to say, properly. But it needs to be proper, not sloppy like it is in this case. Lostcaesar 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Catholic teachings and discipline: the Papacy

Included with the list of "Controversial Catholic teachings and discipline," this article should state the aversion to the office of the pope by several groups in Church history. In the past, numerous individuals have cited certain errors in this doctrine. It rests upon Mattew 16:18-19 ("You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church...and I will give you the keys of the kingdom...") and the supposed unbroken line of popes from Peter to Benedict. Either a link to the "Objections to the Papacy" in the article entitled "Pope" or a summary of the points therin would suffice. 68.195.102.26 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the title of the section to "Combatting Modernism," from the defensive statement, which tends to be POV, regarding "controvery." I hope that nothing in Wikipedia is not "controversial." No one kicks a dead dog! So besides being POV, it also goes without saying!

Rephrased the header as well to remove defensive statements. The Church should get to define itself just as the article on Secularism, Modernism, Liberalism, etc. gets to define themselves!

Removed "renowned theologian." This seems superfluous. And a bit self-serving. If he was doing this under Pope JPII, then we should say so. He was doing this as J Cardinal Ratzinger. Student7 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition by Criticism?

Do we define a religion, media, or person only by what criticism it received? So if I looked up "Dan Rather" would I only see that "he was criticized for using false information about W's draft status in a national broadcast?" And maybe that would comprise a good portion of the article on CBS, as well?

The church inaccurately condemned Galileo for his support of the Copernican theory. But the statement is simplistic, even simple-minded. The English burnt Joan-of-Arc at the stake for being a witch, which was inaccurate as well as being malicious. But the article on England will not feature this as their number one accomplishment in the Middle Ages! The reporting of the Galileo episode is best chalked up to ancient (and no longer existing) Protestant-Catholic enmity than anything else. There is too much else involved.

There is nothing wrong for reporting that the Church opposes birth control, supports the right to life and, under that umbrella, also opposes abortion, stem-cell research, war and capital punishment. The church is the only organization in the world with a consistent approach to right to life in all categories. Criticism? What does that have to do with it? The Washington Post, along with every other news organization, is criticized every time it publishes an editorial. Should the Post be defined by it's popular editorials or it's unpopular ones? My thought would be that the Post defines itself. Whether the editorial is criticized or not is usually irrelevant.

And criticism is irrelevant to the article here, as well and should be deleted unless there is some other compelling reason, other than the writer's mean-spirited dislike for the church or it's position.Student7 03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear - the Catholic Church opposes EMBRYONIC stem cell research. It supports forms of stem cell research that do not involve the harvesting and subsequent destruction of human embryos. It is an important distinction. Didn't mean to hijack your point, which I do agree with, btw. Ultimate ed 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to politely disagree with a point Student7 has made. Most disagreement between Roman Catholics and Protestants is not "ancient (and no longer existing)." To this day there exist irreconcilable differences in doctrine that have been points of major disagreement since the Reformation. It is true, however, that in this age there is little violent emnity. I would also like to note that in this article Catholicism has not be defined by its criticism; rather, objections to the church only act to further define how the church has been recieved by non-Christians and Christians in its long history. Xcountry99 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Xcountry99's point is well-made. What I had intended to say, is that the Galileo episode was exaggerated well beyond what it should have been for several hundred years, to the point, where the pope had to apologize for it! It was a dumb incident, but a lot more complicated than it appears on its face. And in the long run, not really that important. Well explained in Wikipedia incidentally. Protestants deliberately exaggerated it, as indeed, was done by Catholics when the opportunity arose, I'm sure.Student7 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

History

Inserted subtitles under history. It was long enough that it needed them. I believe they are in the right place, though the wording can probably be improved. I also changed the wording under "Crusades" to eliminate word "controversy." The Crusaders ran amok and usually didn't attain their goal. I think this is an objective observation. Had they ejected the Turks from the Holy Land, that, too, would certainly have been "controversial." Sorry, I just don't see what "controversy" or "criticism" has to do with facts. I think some folks take written or television remarks far too seriously. They're simply flyspecks or images on a screen or piece of paper. It's what the crusaders DID or DIDN'T do that was noteworthy. For better or for worse, it was usually the latter!Student7 23:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends what one means by crusades. The crusades, in the broader sense, did accomplish goals: the Muslims were expelled from Italy, Sicily, and southern Spain, the activity of the Teutonic Knights removed paganism in certain areas, and certain internal crusades eliminated heresy. The crusades in the Holy Land did capture Jerusalem for almost a hundred years. So I think I will add some qualifiers. What is controversial is simply (well, too simply) that some people think the crusades were bad, others that they were either good or at least ok. Lostcaesar 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Church doctrine and science

I've removed references to "controversy" defining Church activities. The activities are stand-alone, right or wrong. The Galileo stand was clearly incorrect. I don't think the stem-cell stand will ever be that clear. You may agree or disagree, but that isn't the point.

Having said that, I wanted to add that the Church's position was consistent with other pro-Life decisions, but this didn't seem to belong in a "science" section, per se. Doctrine maybe. The section is a bit vague to include both science and doctrine. I'm not sure if that is a redeeming future or not. I took out the Newman paragraph which was obviously well-researched. There is no antecedent anymore.

If people can show that the Galileo condemnation stifled science in the Catholic countries (as once believed), that would certainly belong here. But it should be given in a factual way, not "some people have argued...." For every Newton and Gauss was there a Pascal and Fibonacci? And are these people of equivalent stature? Out of my depth! Student7 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Church, art, and literature

The point is not so much that the statement got referenced, it's the "accusation." Too much talking heads in this article. People either did things or they didn't. We now KNOW.

When Christianity supplanted the old Paganism, Christians often broke old statues under the assumption that they were discouraging paganism(heresy) and saving the soul of the owner! (They were more careful when statues were unearthed during the Renaissance. Priests destroyed or caused the destruction of Mayan writing, again for the same religious reasons. As a result, much was lost from that culture. And maybe the same in Canada. I wouldn't be surprised. But these are not "criticisms" nor "controversies." That's tv talk = 60 minutes. The Church either did it (they did!) or they didn't. Who gives a sweet farthing about "controversy?" What in blue blazes does that have to do with anything?Student7 21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the cultures that had work destroyed might not be the biggest fans of the people who did the destroying...hence controversy. IrishGuy ^talk 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We have factual problems here. The sources are wreched, simply put, and do not support the commentary. There is a factual problem claiming that the Church systematically destroyed artwork, and we have a lack or reliable sources supporting the claim / criticism. Lostcaesar 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem removing bad sources. None. I do have a problem with removing all criticism and making an article a complete puff piece about the subject. Don't get me wrong, I am Catholic, but I think an encyclopedia needs to show both sides. IrishGuy ^talk 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But the way the section reads now, it reads like a weasel clause. The paragraph is about western art and culture, not colonial repression of indigenous art in North America. A full paragraph about the history of the Church's destruction of perceived 'pagan' art and culture is quite merited, imo, provided someone does it to a standard on par with the rest of this article, which is arguably a keystone article about a major religion. I'm deleting the introductory qualifying clause not only because it contains weasel words, but also because it really is a subtle form of vandalism, whether intentional or not. These articles need to be well-written, well-focused, and well-organized ... they do NOT need to be a tip-toe through the tulips of POV sensitivity. 72.230.110.131 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. My problems are specific, concerning certain facts and sources. Concerning the general principle you mention, I have no problem. Lostcaesar 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to present a whitewashed article. I have supplemented the art section with referenced material. I restored Irishguy's original reference. If Lostcaesar is correct, perhaps this reference can be replaced with one that is better? Student7 21:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Student7, I am sorry to say that I reverted the edit. I do not think those sources meet reliability standards. Furthermore, there were factual problems with the content. There was no systematic burying of idols in antiquity. That statues were dug up in more recent times is a result of the slow march of time and the decline of the empire. The entire forum was burried by the middle ages, simply by nature. Most statues were destroyed in the middle ages, not antiquity, and this was because, once melted, they provided lime for building. It had nothing to do with religion. Most pagan temples, if they were not turned into Churchs (which was a policy of the papacy) simply cumbled due to lack of care. There were a few examples of mobs smashing idols and sometimes temples, but these, especially the latter, were localized. Lostcaesar 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

However, there also aren't really any reliable sources - in the sense you seem to mean - for "Several historians credit the Catholic Church for the brilliance and magnificence of Western art." There's an argument presented, but not really sources. Both of "the Catholic Church was responsible for Western art" and "the Catholic Church was responsible for the destruction of non-Western art" are opinions; it's not likely to be possible to definitively establish the cause of any particular artistic development; there are merely notable opinions. The only sources provided for the moment for the remaining of this paragraph are from Crisis Magazine, a Catholic publication, which unsurprisingly takes a pro-Church view. Perhaps if we can't source any part of the section better than this, we need to simply leave it out? Or, perhaps, replace it with something more closely resembling a factual rendition, simply describing what the Church actually did, rather than including vast sweeping and speculative statements about responsibility for "the brilliance and magnificence of Western art".

I sympathise with the concerns about the removed part; but I'm not sure what's left is much better: it's not a factual description, it's the exposition of an argument. To be honest, this is one of several parts of the article which needs to be rewritten in a substantially more factual style. TSP 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Social Justice,etc.

I removed "criticism" remark, the only intent of which, it would seem, is to put the Church on the defensive. This is contrary to Wikipedia NPOV, which states that a subject should be allowed to present itself.

It was also unreferenced. I also removed "contributed much" which is also POV

What is left,alas, is a whitewash. If the church has failed to provide social justice, please document it. Please leave out the tabloid nouns "controversy" or "criticism." Like Sgt. Friday, all we want is the facts! Student7 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article not mention the fact that no institution on the face of the earth, clothes, feeds, gives medical care and educates more people in ther world each day than the Catholic Church? This is not POV, it is a verifiable fact.

I didn't think the Catholic Church "saw" itself as being founded by Jesus Christ.

From what I read in the World Almanac I thought that the Catholic Church simply "was" founded by Jesus Christ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.174.89 (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Certainly that's the view that I subscribe to, since it seems to have the most scriptural and historical evidence. But various other Christian sects as well as non-Christians would hotly contest the claim that the Catholic Church was what Jesus intended to found. Slac speak up! 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are incorrect. The official teaching is that Christ DID in fact will the Church, though not in all the various historical flaws that clearly exist. These flaws are do to human sinfullness, not Divine will. As to the will of God, however, I would point you to Lumen Gentium where it states "[God the Father] planned to assemble in the Holy Church all those who would believe in Christ." (LG1). And in LG 8 you will find "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed one, holy, catholic, and apostolic which our savior, after His resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd (Jn21:17)....This Church...subsits in the Catholic Church..." The rest of the document continues to explain the nature of the Church, but clearly in a way that defines the ontological existence of the Catholic Church as divinely willed, though clearly human and always in need of purification. Hope this helps. DaveTroy 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, Lumen Gentium is a document produced by the Catholic Church, and thus confirms the "Catholic Church sees itself" wording. -- Cat Whisperer 23:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat Whisperer, I agree with you on both counts. But, the fact is, the Church DOES use her official documents to explain her view, hence why I quoted it. My aim was actually to point out the error in World Alamanac, or rather the Church's view of herself, as opposed to the view of other Christian communities.DaveTroy 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the modern Catholic Church sees itself as divinely willed. Unfortunately, this view has lead to an uncritical evaluation of the Catholic Church's historical formation. The history section in this article gives very few socio-political explanations for why the Catholic Church developed as it did. The significance of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire is skipped even though it was the outstanding leadership of Pope Leo I during this time that helped define a new political role for the church. The period could have been identified as a possible starting point for the modern day Roman Catholic church but the changes during this period are missing. It is also generally accepted that the church centred in Rome held a position of leadership at the Council of Nicea, but the nature of this authority is not discussed. If the Catholic church sees itself as divinely willed that is fine but this view should not lead to an uncritical evaluation of the church's formation. What good is history if it doesn't make you think? (By the way, this article changes quickly thanks for the changes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.55.92 (talk • contribs)

It is interesting how many starting points are proposed for the beginning of "the modern Catholic Church". People take one or other point of its long history of growth and development, of crisis and renewal, which was never static and cut-and-dried, but instead kept responding, as was natural, to varying circumstances by stressing different aspects of doctrine and discipline, affecting also the concrete activity of the Pope. They then claim that it was at that particular point that the Roman Catholic Church came into being. Anonymous 69 chooses the time of Pope Leo I. Some have chosen the time of the Emperor Constantine I. Some have chosen the time of the Emperor Charlemagne. Some have chosen 1054. Some, I feel sure, must have chosen the time of the Council of Trent. Old Catholics choose the time of the First Vatican Council. Certain traditionalists choose the time of the Second Vatican Council. And what about the time of Pope Clement I, who intervened in affairs of the Church in Corinth? Or ... Or ... Enough said. Lima 09:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lima, I hope my point wasn't misunderstood. I wasn't arguing a starting point for the Catholic Church, that would be a different topic. My point was that the belief that the Catholic Church itself was divinely willed has unfairly influence this article. The history section should discuss the possibility that the Catholic church we recognize today formed several centuries after Christ. Considering other socio-political reasons that the Catholic Church formed the way it did lets the reader decide if the Catholic Church is the manifestation of devine will or simply one attempt by christians to follow it. If you read the article on Pope Leo I, he is credited with major changes to the church that should be included in the history section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.55.92 (talk • contribs)

well in mass evry week we say 'i believe in the one holy catholic apostolic church', which would imply that it is the only relevant church, jesus made peter (i think) the first pope, so the catholic church sees itself as the same church he founded then, and other catholic churches are different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel625 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Catholics believe the church was created when Jesus told Peter to "feed my sheep" at the end of one of the gospels, after he rose from the dead.

Length of Article

I think this article is getting too long. Some of the sections are really well defined. Can't see any improvement in those. The article on "sex and gender" problems might be better moved to "modernism (Roman Catholic)" though I hate to just dump it in there.

I think we need to look for sections to move out and link to.Student7 02:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC

I agree. This article is getting far too long to be manageable. I have already suggested moving part of the membership section off the page. That wont help much, I admit. However, there does seem to be a need for a page specifically devoted to celebacy in the Catholic Church. I dont understand why such complex issues are forced into generic articles such as clerical celibacy or the Roman Catholic Church. I will work on a new article so we can move some of the materical off page. Any other suggestions for material that can be moved off page? EastmeetsWest 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the "Combatting Modernism" section needs to be in this article. Much of it is already covered in the article. I think this one section is the best candidate to focus on for shortening the article. Either move it to be its own article or summarize it down so as not to repeat what is already in the Beliefs section. --Richard 10:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was bold and broke up the "Combatting Modernism" section, redistributing the pieces into the rest of the article. This doesn't shorten the article a lot but it does help the flow by not mentioning topics twice. I also made some other changes which I hope other editors will agree improve the article. --Richard 10:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Modernism

Are we sure that "ontological" is really the best word for describing the fundamental role of priesthood? I had to look it up and didn't quite understand it. I put in a Wiktionary link which, to tell the truth, didn't seem to help much!Student7 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ontological has to do with being (and can be contrasted with doing. So the primary issue is who the priest is and not what he does. Who he is is changed by ordination, just as who I am was changed by baptism. It's a simple idea, but I don't know if I'm communicating it clearly. Freder1ck 14:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

It goes to the point that the priesthood is not a career, or a job. It is essential because today's secular society, particularly in the context here (ordination for men only), wants to see the priesthood as the "priestly office", i.e. just a job that anyone (man or woman) should be able to do. God thinks differently, as does the Church. Lostcaesar 14:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr M's contention that the form "Cardinal John Smith" is anti-etiquette

In accordance with Latin tradition, cardinals, like the Pope, sign by placing the title (Papa, abbreviated Pp., or Cardinalis abbreviated Card.) after their first name, as, for instance, "Benedictus Pp. XVI" or "John Card. Smith". That is the proper form for their signature

However, the most common way of referring to these is as "Pope Benedict XVI" and "Cardinal John Smith", not "Benedict Pope XVI" and "John Cardinal Smith".

The form "Cardinal John Smith" is almost universal in the usage of the Holy See's website as a way of referring to cardinals, though of course it always reproduces signatures of cardinals in their "John Cardinal Smith" form.

Catholic News Service, which produces a stylebook, that is widely quoted - for instance, the Writer's Guide, Institute on Religious Life says it should be followed; and it has been called "the ultimate reference work on all kinds of church terms"[4] - always uses the "Cardinal John Smith" form.

"Cardinal John Smith" is the form predominantly used by other news agencies and newspapers also, both Catholic and secular.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, which itself generally followed the "Cardinal John Smith" usage, stated that the form given in The Catholic Directory published in London in 1906 ("His Eminence Cardinal ..." - not "His Eminence ... Cardinal ...") "may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general."

Dr M prefers the "John Cardinal Smith" form, and has tried to impose his own preference throughout the article with no better explanation than "buy a book on etiquette and look it up"! I have no intention of retorting: "Buy one yourself and look it up." I only ask him to try to justify his action in imposing his own preference by altering the form that others have chosen and that, as I have shown above, they may quite legitimately chose. (Or does Dr M believe that the Vatican, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic News Service, and the media in general are all out of step?)

There is no need to discuss here which is the more authoritative form. My personal belief is that "Cardinal John Smith" is more authoritative. But I am not trying to impose it on others. And someone like Dr M, who believes "John Cardinal Smith" is more authoritative, has no right to impose that form on those who prefer the "Cardinal John Smith" form, which is at least acceptable, even if it were less authoritative.

Since I do not believe Dr M can in fact justify his action, I am reverting to the last version in which other editors, earlier editors, were still allowed to use the form they preferred. Lima 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Support for this position. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 01:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to recant! I was raised on the odd word order and deliberately put it in that order when editing. After researching, I am forced to admit that the form Cardinal John Smith is probably correct nowdays. But you will have to admit that Jaime Cardinal Sin is a lot more fun that Cardinal Jaime Sin. Kind of loses it meter!  :) Student7 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support as well. IrishGuy ^talk 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Support — this seems like a no-brainer. -- WGee 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Roman_Catholicism

For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Roman_Catholicism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Page vandalism

While reading the article about Baptists, click on the link to Western Catholicism in the series box on the right side of the screen. It will take you to the Roman Catholic page but these Anti-Catholic changes have been made to the contents:

The Roman Catholic Church or Whore of Babylon (see terminology below) is the counterfeit Christian Church in full communion with Satan. It traces its origins and sees itself as the same Church founded by Belzebub, the prince of demons.

The Catholic Church is the largest counterfeit Christian Church and the largest organized body of any world religion.[1] According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2004 was 1,098,366,000 or approximately 1 in 6 of the world's population

Clicking the "edit this page" button will bring up the original text of the page and typing in Roman Catholic on the search engine will also bring up an unaltered page. I am newly registered (though a long time user) of Wikipedia and do not know how to correct this issue.

Thanks a bunch! Flyboymb 05:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit box shows the correct current version of the article. The text you see on the article page itself was present for a little under an hour on 25 December before the vandalism was repaired. You're looking at some cached version of it. If the cache is on your own machine, you can fix it by holding down the shift key as you click on the reload button. If the cache is at your ISP, you'll have to wait until they refresh their cache before you see the text that belongs there. They apparently do this on a less than daily basis, which to me is a good argument for dumping your ISP in favor of one that provides you a direct Internet connection, should this prove to be the case. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic bias in Liturgy of the hours and renaming proposal

See Talk:Oriental_Orthodoxy and Talk:Anglicanism and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy, all of them with the identical appeal: "Roman Catholic bias in Liturgy of the hours and renaming proposal. Please see Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Requested_move for details", an appeal that has won one supporter. --Espoo 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)" Lima 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

more problems

The more I look the more strange stuff I find. For instance: 748-810 this citation is used to justify the assertion that "the Church" is the most common name the Catholic Church uses for itself. This does not make sense. First, the section is not a comprehensive treatment of the names of the Catholic Church and doesn't even discuss Catholic Church vs. Roman Catholic Church. It is rather a discussion of the various images the Church uses for itself. "The Church" is not a name of the Catholic Church. Lots of Christians refer to their church as "the Church." This is simply an abbreviated reference like saying the University instead of saying the University of Virginia all the time. It only makes sense in context. "The Church" is not the name of the Catholic Church. So why are we insisting that it is? EastmeetsWest 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

EastmeetsWest correctly stated that this CCC reference was misplaced. I have corrected its placing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church treats of the whole of the (Roman) (Catholic) Church. When it speaks of "the Church", what does it mean? Just the Latin Church? Lima 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Membership section

"To break on one's own initiative the juridical bond with the Church, a formal act is required in writing before one's local Ordinary or parish priest, who is to judge the genuineness of the act of apostasy, heresy or schism; without this formal act of defection, "heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection, if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesistical authority in the required manner."[26] Those who do not take this step are presumed to be still linked with the Catholic Church and thus bound by ecclesiastical laws. Someone who renounces membership may later be received again into the Catholic Church, after making a profession of faith, or in occult cases (lack of formal act) going to confession."

I am stymied. What is this doing here? The minutia of Catholic canon law could fill all of WP, but it all doesnt belong on the RCC main page. This paragraph needs to find a home on a canon law or other page with a reference to it on the main page at most. The average reader is not looking for this kind of material in a section titled membership, I would suggest. If no one objects, I would be glad to take care of this. This section I would think should have statistics on numbers of members.EastmeetsWest 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Parallelism with Eastern Orthodox Church in the intro

Is not necessary or desirable. It runs the risk of using Catholic theological descriptors to describe Orthodox, or vice-versa. Just because they both conceive of themselves as the same sacred body, doesn't mean they conceive of this body identically. Slac speak up! 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fairly well written but needs editing. The section on the Reformation is not clear and entirely understandable. Information about the Inquisition is mixed into this section although it is a different topic and the relationship between the Reformation and Inquisition is not explained in a manner that justifies keeping them as one topic.

2. Factually accurate?: Not accurate at all. The Eastern Orthodox Churches arent in any way linked with the Roman Cathlic Chruch. they are called Orthodox due to being the continuers of the religion preached by Jesus. And the Pope isnt in any way the head of the Orthodox Churches as they have Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople who is the head of the Orthodox Churches on earth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.118.187 (talk • contribs) - This last statement has been strongly denied by the Moscow patriarchate, saying: "We do not regard the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a centre of the Orthodox world!"[5] Lima 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?:

4. Neutral point of view?: This article often fails to stay neutral. Few historical facts are given about the Inquisition although it is a distinct period in history that people might want to research. Some comments about the Inquisition seem more focused on influencing popular opinion about this period in history.

5. Article stability?

6. Images?:

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Entwood 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Entwood's only edits (a total of four) involve failing this article as a GA. Although logged-in users technically are allowed to judge GAs, it is extremely likely that this is a single-purpose account. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 05:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Ginko100, this article needs some work. I specified what needs work. Please do not make this personal by questioning my intentions or expressing your doubts that I should be allowed to contribute. --Entwood 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although it could be a single purpose account, it could also be a legitimate attempt to isolate heated issues. I see no reason not to respond to these comments on their merit. Freder1ck 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

what bible do we use?

The New American Bible http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm does appear anywhere here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.10 (talk • contribs)

Theistic and Catholic coverage on Intelligent Design article is biased but edits are refused

Right now I am having trouble convincing some editors on intelligent design that the article may be giving undue weight to a non-magesterium Catholic position and also omits that theists reject intelligent design that contradicts evolution. It also omits that theists can reject it for reasons other than moral or ethical grounds, such as scientific grounds. My edit is at the bottom of [6] but is being rejected by only a few on [7]. If you think what I said has some meaning then pls do weigh in. Thanks to all. (CptKirk 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

System of grace vs old canard of "salvation through works"

Is there any wiki-entry on the Catholic system of graces? Someone should lay out the differences and interplay between habitual grace; sanctifying grace; virtues; indwelling of the Holy Spirit; actual grace; internal actual grace; exterior graces; and gratuitous grace or charisms. I'm confused by the system but I am also tired of hearing people accuse Catholic Christians of having a system of salvation through works which isn't true. But its hard to explain their actual position without a better understanding of their system.--Wowaconia 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

History of the Papacy

I have embarked on a major expansion of the History of the Papacy article which was just a stub before I started working on it yesterday. I have attempted to keep the focus of that article on the history of the Papacy and NOT on the history of the Catholic church. This is, of course, a very difficult distinction to maintain since the histories of the Papacy and the Church are so closely intertwined. What I've been trying to do is to leave out anything that is more about the Church but not really that relevant to the Papacy. It seems to me, for example, that the work of most missionaries is an important part of the Church's history but not as important a part of the history of the Papacy. For this reason, I have left those out.

I seek your help in making these kinds of distinctions. I have, for the time being, left out the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. I am trying to decide how relevant these are to the history of the Papacy. They are, obviously, very important to the history of the Church. What should be said about these topics in the History of the Papacy article? Your thoughts on this question would be much appreciated.

Since writing this initial request for feedback, I have added information about the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation. What I need now is feedback as to whether I have the right amount of information about each of these topics. --Richard 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also left out most of the 20th century because I ran out of steam. I plan to write something about the relationship of Pius XII to Hitler and Mussolini.

I've written a bit about papal relations with Fascists, the Lateran pacts of 1929 and the Reichskonkordat since writing this original request for feedback. Your feedback about these sections would be appreciated.

The role of John XXIII in convening Vatican II is also important. I also plan to write something about the relationship of John Paul II to the Polish Communist government and his role in helping bring an end to Communist domination of Eastern Europe. His role in reversing the modernist trend in the church is also important to document. Have I left anything out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 09:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

History of the Catholic Church

I have to say that I was disappointed to find that the History of the Catholic Church article was a timeline instead of a prose article. As such, I think it should be titled Chronology of the Catholic Church. I would much prefer that an article titled History of the Catholic Church should be an overview that expands upon the history section in the Roman Catholic Church but provides a level of detail similar to History of the Papacy or History of the United States. What do you think?

--Richard 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I second that. --tess 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Humor

I have proposed moving/deleting the "Anti-Catholic Humor" section of the Anti-Catholicism article. I have provided my rationale on the talk page. User:Colin4C has objected to this proposal but I disagree with his reasoning. Please read the discussion on the talk page and register your opinion there. Thanks. --Richard 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)