Wikipedia

Talk:Catholicity/Archive 3

< Talk:Catholicity
Latest comment: 20 years ago by Sam Spade in topic "Catholic Church"
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Regarding the Roman Catholic Church

I have removed and replaced the following POV material from the opening paragraphs:

The Catholic Church is today widely referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, even by many Catholics themselves, but this is a misnomer. The Roman qualifier is a relatively recent (ca. 1580) invention by Protestant Christians, to attempt to posit the church as a Roman variant of the universal (i.e., Catholic) church, whereas the Catholic Church considers itself the universal Catholic Church.

The "Catholic Church" was Latin and Roman well before the Protestant Reformation; it has been so at least since the [[Great Schism]]. The development of the pretensions of the Papacy is a complicated historical topic, but for a good part of the history of Christianity, Rome was a backwater, in a devastated and depressed area. It was only after the decline of Byzantium that the see of Rome was able to assert itself. In any case, omission of Roman is inherently POV, as this paragraph makes clear, and offensive to those Christians, Angl icans, Orthodox, and others, who 

are not Roman Catholics, but feel a part of the catholic Church.  This article is about Roman Catholicism.  It should be moved to Roman Catholicism, which would make this moot.  What defines Roman Catholicism, or "Catholicism" according to Roman Catholics, is acceptance of the claims of the Bishop of Rome.  It is therefore right to call Roman Catholics Roman Catholic, and misleading or wrong to omit the Roman.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:15, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This article is most definitely not about Roman Catholicism. It is a about Catholicism. More needs to be added about Anglo-Catholicism and others who also define themselves as Catholic but not Roman Catholic. Any move to Roman Catholicism would make no sense because it would require the removal or sections that are not about Roman Catholicism and about explaining the context of different strands of Catholicism. But as Roman Catholicism is by far the biggest strand of those who describe themselves as Catholic, and is what the vast majority of people of all religions and none think of when they hear the word catholic, it is quite natural that it would have by far the largest segment devoted to it. FearÉIREANN 05:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree - changing the name would only confuse. Roman Catholicism is definately the largest, and the doctrinal differences are too minor. Thanks Jtdirl. Ihcoyc if you think the issue needs to be addressed in the article or in another, feel free to add more than what is there. It may also be interesting to add the "universal" meaning of the word "catholic" to the Christianity page. -Visorstuff 05:32, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As the writer of the above-quoted paragraph, I fail to see its POV-ness. Thank you for adding the citation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, IHCOYC, but I suggest you go a little further. Search the CCC (and earlier catechisms for that matter) for the term "Roman Catho lic" - it does not appear in the Catechism. There are references to the "Roman Church", the Roman Rite (which is what many Catholics mean by Roman Catholic, by the way), the Roman Catechism, etc., but not once does the Catechism acknowledge something called the Roman Catholic Church. The correct name is the Catholic Church. I intend to add an article about the history of the incorrect term. Harris7 22:31, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Of course it will not occur in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because the POV of that Catechism and the church it represents is that Catholicism equals Romanism, and acceptance of the claimed authority of the Pope is for them not the definition of a particular sectarian organisation, but a central part of Christian revelation; those who reject his claims are deficient in their faith.
This article, however, should not endorse that particular POV. Were the vast majority of this article that speaks of the Pope and his church at Roman Catholicism where it belongs, it would not be an issue. But there are others who call themselves Catholic but do not accept those claims. An article at Catholicism should be neutral towards these claims; as written, this text is not. Roman Catholic is the correct term for the institution led by the Pope; moreover, the identification of the Pope and his denomination with Rome well antedates the Protestant Reformation; claiming that Roman Catholicism was never Roman until the Reformation is simply wrong. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
IHCOYC, I never claimed or implied that "Roman Catholicism was never Roman until the Reformation". I am claiming that the use of the expression "Roman Catholic Church" began during the Reformation, and I intend to provide documentation thereof. If, in the meantime, you can find any documented use of the expression "Roman Catholic Church" predating the Protestant Reformation, please help me out - I'd like to see it. Thank you for the compromise, of including the statement saying the "Roman" Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church. Harris7 03:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Another part of the article says that the name of the Pope's church is the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church." "Roman Catholic Church" strikes me as a reasonable and sufficient name for short use. If the one is wrong, is the other? I will also cheerfully concede that the use of the "Roman Catholic Church" may well be more common after the Reformation. On the other hand, Roman Catholicism specifically identified itself as Roman in Pope Boniface VIII's bull Unam Sanctam, which also declared that subjection to the "Pontifex Romanus" was necessary for salvation. This was in 1302, well before Luther. I frankly do not understand why insisting on "Roman" in speaking of the Pope and his denomination is even controversial. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:27, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Speaking of which, whence does that name come? Where is the name "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" come? It appears to be modeled after the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed's una sancta catholica et apostolica Ecclesia ("one holy, catholic and apostolic Church"), but I've never seen "Roman" as a part of that name. Publius

It is wrong to say that Catholic is the name only used by RCs. Most people across all religions use that term for RC. FearÉIREANN 18:37, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi James, in your corresponding edit: "Most though not all christians and people from other faiths and none use the term Catholic Church to mean Roman Catholic.", the "and none" seems to be extraneous.
I apologize for wasting everybody's time on my nit-picking, which has resulted in the 2nd intro paragraph becoming nearly identical to the paragraph titled "Roman Catholicism". I'll leave this alone for now! Harris7 18:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The point was simply that Catholic is used by most people, whatever their religious beliefs or lack of, to refer to Roman Catholic. Maybe it needed to be written in clearer language. FearÉIREANN 20:12, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think that it is appropriate to refer to the Roman Catholic Church as such, when what is meant is that body of believers who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's a helpful term for "the rest of us", even if it's not the official designation. Similarly, I think "Eastern Orthodoxy" is an acceptable term for the "Eastern Orthodox Church", even though I think you would be hard pressed to find any official church document that mentions such an entity by either name. It's a useful term to refer to the collection of Orthodox Christian churches that remain in communion with each other; they aren't only in the East any more, and also confess faith in "one holy catholic and apostolic church" and so in that sense also consider themselves catholic. No insult should be intended or perceived in either case. There are also a number of Protestant denominations with similar all-encompassing names, like the "Church of Christ", "Church of God", "Disciples of Christ", "Christian Church", etc. Every Christian church considers itself to be all of the things mentioned in these names, so some kind of qualifier or extra designation becomes useful when talking about them, just for the sake of clear communication if nothing else. Wesley 04:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suspect that there is unfortunate ambiguity in the term Roman Catholicism, because it is most generally used as a synonym of Catholicism, but it also may mean the Roman rite in particular. Perhaps a convention would be best, such as: 

- "Roman Catholic" for all of Catholicism (under the Pope)
- "Roman Rite" if discussing only the Roman rite (not the Eastern Rite of Catholicism), and by extension, "Roman Rite Catholics" if discussing the people under Roman Rite. For example, Roman Rite priests may not be wed (unless they have converted from another rite or from Eastern Orthodoxy).

or of course the first term could be "Catholicism" for all of Catholicism; whatever you all think is best.

"It is organised in national hierarchies with diocesan bishops subject to archbishops." -- Is this true ? I thought in theory bishops were under the Pope.


The two propositions are not mutually exclusive. All bishops form the College of Bishops with the Pope (i.e., the Bishop of Rome) at its head, and all bishops are subject to the Pope as Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church ("the Roman Pontiff" in canon law). However, certain Sees have greater administrative and disciplinary authority than others (metropolitical and patriarchal Sees), and the ordinaries of these Sees take different titles to indicate their additional responsibilities.
For example, let's say Bishop N. is ordinary of the Diocese of Townsville; Townsville is part of the Province of Urban City. Bp. N. is administratively subject to Archbishop Q. in Abp. Q.'s capacity as metropolitan of Urban City, but both Bp. N. and Abp. Q. are directly subject to Pope PP. in his capacity as head of the College of Bishops and Roman Pontiff. Assuming that Bp. N. and Abp. Q. are both ordinaries in the Latin Rite, they are also subject to Pope PP. in his capacity as Patriarch of Rome or Patriarch of the West.
Essentially, all Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic ordinaries are subject to the Pope qua Roman Pontiff, but are also administratively subject to their own immediate superiors in the hierarchy; additionally, Roman Catholic (but not Eastern Catholic) ordinaries are simultaneously subject to the Pope qua Patriarch of the West (in which capacity he is head of one of the sui juris Churches that form the Catholic Church). It's important to remember that all Catholic bishops, and especially the Pope, wear more than one hat. Publius

Does this phrase —

The traditionalist Roman Catholic position is that women cannot be priests or bishops,

— falsely imply too much about the basis of this position, or that it is the position of an exclusive sector of the Roman Cathoic church, rather than "papal", "mainstream", "official", "biblical", "established", "magisterial", "orthodox", etc. (all of which are at least as true concerning this position, as "traditionalist"? Mkmcconn 07:20, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, such positions that have been around a while are traditional, not traditionalist, as well as the synonyms you suggest. The position has been around a long time. The idea that the teaching should stay the way it's been might be called traditionalist, or conservative. I've tried to edit with this in mind. Wesley 13:13, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know this has probably been previously discussed, but I very strongly recommend that this article be restricted to discussion of Catholicism qua Apostolic Succession and the concept of a universal church, and that the discussion of the Catholic Churches -- i.e., the Roman and Eastern Churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff -- be moved to a separate article (probably Catholic Church) with a disambiguation header linking to this article. I make this proposal for two reasons: (1.) the Catholic Church is a large and complicated organism, and really ought to have its own article (as is the case in most encyclopedias); and (2.) only the doctrines and beliefs of the Catholic Church regarding Apostolic Succession and the nature of the Universal Church are relevant to discussion of Catholicism in those terms. The rest of the dogmas, hierarchies, and so forth of the Catholic Church are irrelevant to a discussion of Catholicism as participation in the Apostolic Succession and being part of a universal church. Publius 00:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Millions of Methodists consider themselves Catholic, as the Apostles' Creed is recited each Sunday: "I believe...in the holy catholic church..." These Christians may respect the Pope, but do not give allegiance to him, and for whom apostolic succession is moot. The page, as it is now written, excludes these Christians, and is therefore POV. "Catholic" in this sense includes all who are truly followers of Christ, whether Roman Catholic, or Methodist, or whatever group. In this light the first two paragraphs need a rewrite. For the time being, I'll not attempt it but "wait-and-see." (A teenager is apt to say "forgiveness is easier to get than permission" but a more mature person would say "fools rush in...." ;o) Pollinator 18:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A lot of attention is given to the child abuse scandals. There is a separate page about this referenced in this page also so why not move it all there and keep the reference. The Catholic Church is not defined by this issue any more than it is by Vatican II which is hardly given enough focus or the dissident branches of the Catholic Church and the rebel Popes, which gets hardly any attention. This article is verging on being a little unfriendly. Neutrality is what is required by Wikipedia. I think this all needs to be slit into Catholic Church History, Catholic Heresy, Keep your children away from Papists Psb777 14:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A fair comment, Pete. Also, the section on infallibility, press releases and the ordination of women goes into far too much detail. Tannin 14:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I deleted the whole paragraph about the sex abuse scandal. This is definitely not the right place to right about it. Instead, I've created a link to Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal (which IMHO should be renamed Roman Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal). The link is in the See also section together with a link to Inquisition, an issue way more important in the history of the RC Church than the sex abuse scandal. Kpalion 00:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion in the discussion above, so I'm going to try to give a concise summary of two important distinctions that need to be clear both in discussion here and in the article:

  1. There is a distinction between "Catholic" and "catholic".  !!Protestants AND Catholics ALIKE use the latter in the Apostles' Creed (Roman Catholics also believe in ONE UNIFIED church of Christ. WE DO NOT USE capital "C" in "catholic" in our the Apostles creed. PLease do not lead folks on to believe that ours is an exclusionary Apostles' Creed)!!, but they do not capitalize it because they are referring to the abstract idea that all Christianity is united. It has no connection to "Catholicism."
  2. The Catholic Church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. As the article says, there are 24 independent churches in full communion with the Pope, i.e. recognizing his authority. These churches are all "Catholic" but they are not Roman Catholic. The Latin Church or "Roman Catholic Church" is by far the largest of these, but some of the others have substantial international membership. I know there are Byzantine Rite churches in my area. Hence "Roman Catholic" does not mean "Recognizing the Roman Pope" as is stated or implied in some of the comments above. Isomorphic 15:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A few sources that help make clear the whole Catholic Church vs. Roman Catholic Church distinction:

I've tried to find a site that lists all the Catholic Churches (sources said there are about 22 of them,) which Rite each of them belongs to, date at which they entered communion with the Holy See, etc. but I can't seem to find one. That'd be good information, and we should have it, if not necessarilly in this article. Anybody got a source? Isomorphic 05:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wait, here we go: this appears to be a good presentation. I haven't looked over the whole thing, but the introduction gives the basic history of the Catholic Eastern Churches. Isomorphic 05:37, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I took the plunge and spun off Roman Catholic Church. I think I got the bulk of the information moved. Cleanup is still required, but with the team we have buzzing on these topics right now, that should go quickly, I hope. Snowspinner 14:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suggested revision for the deleted paragraph (is this not accurate and neutral?:

The Catholic Church is today widely referred to by non-Catholics as the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church considers itself the only Catholic Church without a qualifier. The Roman qualifier is a relatively recent (ca. 1580) invention by Protestant Christians, its first attested use in English dating to 1605. (I have removed all attributions of bad faith to anyone, and added a fact!) Can it go back in?

Among all the entries for various sects (we dare not used the word!) Wikipedia makes the childlike confusion of Religion and Church. I set one at the head of this article. "I belong to the such-and-so religion" the child confides naively. Aparently we're all rather naive in this area. A disamb is needed for Church, Rite, Communion, Religion]] etc etc Wetman 14:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would remove the claims that "Roman Catholic Church" is somehow a Protestant invention, or that it is used exclusively by Protestants. I am fairly sure that most press stylebooks call for "Roman Catholic" instead of "Catholic" when not "catholic" is meant, at least the first time. Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Intro. I think that the Roman Catholic Church, being a specific institution, is not studied in the same way as the general concepts of monarchy or capitalism. "Churches" are studied in the same way as monarchy and capitalism, but the Romman Catholic Church itself is going to be studied in the same way as specific institutions - not as general categories of institutions. Snowspinner 14:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, Snowspinner, cut it out - I'm trying to do reorganization and clarification, and I keep getting edit conflicts because of your dispute. After this article and related articles are cleaned up and focused, we shouldn't need a message like that anyway, so quit arguing about exactly how it should read. Isomorphic 14:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Works for me. Wasn't sure how long to expect the construction to be lasting. =) Snowspinner 14:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the redirect at Roman Catholicism from this article to Roman Catholic Church. If it's Roman it probably belongs there, and a brief list of all that links there suggests that they should be going there. Smerdis of Tlön 15:32, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good catch. Snowspinner 15:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In all honesty this page is still a mess. There is a problem of competing claims for the right to the term "Catholic Church", both of whom are substantially groups (say hundreds of millions of people) who think they are entitled to it. Here, the first paragraph sets a definition which is violated by the third.

Isn't the solution a disambiguitation page (or whatever they are called): there are two uses of the phrase "Catholicism"; "Catholicism is either (1) an alternative name for Roman Catholicism or (2) refers to churches which may a claim to be Catholic etc etcBozMo(talk)

mess

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is an utter mess. Is it about "Catholic" churches in general or the followers of the Pope of Rome? I'll come back in a week or so to see what the answer is, and if there is no answer, I'll presume that it's supposed to be the former and alter the article accordingly. Dogface 21:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

the article about Roman Catholicism is here Roman Catholic Church. It is POV to assume that is the only legitimately catholic organization, as I pointed out early in the article there is a list of those who meet the criteria. So long as the changes you make are for the best, be bold!. Cheers, Sam Spade 22:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Massive POV vandal at work

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The POV (hardcore pro-Roman Catholic) vandal who refuses to get a Wikipedia account is at it again. He has turned it back into a page that presumes that Roman Catholics are the only Catholics in the entire world. I have reversed his extreme POV reversion.Dogface 14:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Be kind, please, don't call names. I don't think your edits are reliable. There are too many changes, too many attempts to try to make the Roman Catholic Church appear silly or incorrect. It will be too much work to go over all your edits and correct all the problems. I was just doing people a favor to revert to 14 May; it's closer to a balanced portrait. I don't presume that Roman Catholics are the only Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church does not presume that, either. 207.192.130.197 20:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

One other thought: In reverting this page I am not implying or proposing that it is a 'good page'. I just don't have confidence in the many things you've done to it. I do not consider, in other words, that the revision of 14 May is somehow a must-save version. 207.192.130.197 20:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I have had a chance to more closely examine the difference between the versions of 14 May and the one user Dogface has provided, and I am disappointed to say that I perceive a number of problems which warrant notice:

  • Deletion of useful information
    • Scripture references from doctrinal list-out
    • Footnote for "first pope" deleted
  • Use of strange phrases, such as "Roman Catholic Church and its appendages"
  • Apparently irresponsible editing: where, for example, did the list of rites go? Why do I have to wonder where he put it?
  • Odd results of editing: after all the hubbub surrounding these pages recently, the Catholicism page has only a teensy entry for RCC; almost the same size as Questionable Catholics; Anglo-Catholicism gets much more play. How is this sensible?
  • Constant eagerness to project the idea that the West abandoned the East and traditional Christianity;
    • In his edits of the Eastern Orthodoxy page he once changed "Divisions from the West" to "The West Departs" as a category organizer. It shouldn't take much imagination to see that he went from a fairly neutral stance to an interpretive one.
    • His objective at present is to remove "Roman Catholic POV"; yet that can't be done throughout this entry, otherwise where will the 'non-institutional' aspects of the RCC be competently described? All of this seems a way to thwart cogent expression of the Catholic faith.
This proves your prejudice. You are of the dogma that "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are identical. This is not the case. Dogface 14:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Describing the theology professed by the RCC as "semi-legalistic"...
    • I do not consider it likely that he will be competent in replacing the information about the rites, such as it was.
    • Highly interpretive commentary of no value in the entry: "Therefore, the status of Rome depends upon whether or not Rome's original seniority was a matter of spiritual supremacy (as asserted by the supporters of Papal monarchalism in Rome) or a matter of having been in what was then the leading city of the Empire (as asserted by everyone else)."
      • Note the loaded terminology: "Therefore", "Papal monarchilasm", "asserted", "everyone else".
      • Note vague terms used: "original seniority", "spiritual supremacy". These are not clear terms by any means.
  • No evident citation of sources; rather, a view replaces a view, and the replacement view gives the appearance of being slanted.
  • Sloppiness in copyediting, leading me to doubt overall care:
    • "For contrasts, Protestantism and the Lutheran Church."

I agree that the file about Catholicism needs more organization and such, and perhaps I'll put my shoulder to the wheel, but I did want to share my observations, and request that user Dogface take greater care in his work.

207.192.130.197 07:35, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I have had a look at the previous edits of user Dogface to this entry, and I find more examples of the removal of information.

207.192.130.197 20:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I have offered improved definitions for this entry, and have re-organized it in places. I kept everything that was not made superfluous by the definitional section. I restored a point or two that appear to have been 'misplaced' over time, and that seem reasonable to me. 207.192.130.197 04:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would you guys settle down? I havn't seen any vandalism here recently. What I have seen is an anon being bold. I reccomend you create an account, its easier tointeract w. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 04:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you; I think I will be "Trc" from now on.

I would like to propose a further point. "Roman Catholic Church" is a very specific term. It is really that the "Catholic Church" encompasses the Roman Church and several others. I have arranged the pages now so that RCC content is now on CC, rather than the other way around. It really makes more sense. I also put the criticisms of the CC into a separate file, as that seemed logical. See what you think. Forgot: Trc 06:17, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Looking good. I do think it is possible to say there is a bit more focus on the roman side of things, and more mention can be made of doctrinal differences other than papist or no, but overall it looks quite nice to me. Sam [Spade] 06:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Organization

Latest comment: 20 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you. I want to talk more about the overall organization of the relevant files here. Snowspinner didn't like what I just did; let me try to explain it.

Up to now, it has worked like this:

  • Roman_Catholics -> Roman_Catholic_Church
  • Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church -> Roman_Catholic_Church
  • Catholic_Church -> Catholic
  • Catholicism
  • Roman_Catholic_Church

The way it should work is:

  • Catholicism
  • Catholic_Church (which includes the RCC, not the other way around)
  • Roman_Catholic_Church -> Catholic_Church (actually there is a thing called the Roman Church, which is one of the Churches in perfect communion with the Pope)
  • Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church (Snowspinner says spinoffs not preferred, okay I can see the reasoning in that.)
  • Roman_Catholics -> Catholic_Church

What do you think? The key point is: The best understanding is that there is a "Catholic Church" which subsumes the churches in communion. That there are other Catholic churches is an argument for, not against, having "Catholic_Church" be the primary landing point. Trc 06:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I agree w you in theory, and snowspin is the one who doesn't prefer spinoffs, they arn't against policy. Some admins create/encourage them. I would like a more detailed/alternate description of what you intend tho, the examples above don't help me alot. Sam [Spade] 06:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
By -> do you mean a redirect, or a link, or what? Sam [Spade] 06:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Try Catholic Church. The "Catholic Church" subsumes the Roman Church and the others in communion. That ought to be the primary landing point. In other words, take the content from Roman Catholic Church and put it in Catholic Church. Yes, -> means redirect. Trc 06:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Catholic Church is wrong, from what I have read. It claims that all catholic accept the pope. I think this page should be the primary landing point. Sam [Spade] 06:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, okay that wasn't very popular. Understand I meant no harm. I understand the "Catholic Church" to subsume the "Roman Church" and several others; it seems to me that the term "Catholic Church" ought to be the primary landing point. Do you agree in theory? Trc 06:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I suggest this:

  • Roman_Catholics -> Roman_Catholic_Church
  • Catholic_Church -> Catholicism
  • Catholic ->Catholicism

and no harm done, your new, and you point out an undeveloped area. Sam [Spade] 06:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion is more sensible than what currently exists.

Incidentally it may be just as well to keep "catholic" a separate word, as they are in the dictionary. The word "catholic" gets enough use outside of the one specific context that it is reasonable for it to have a separate entry. Trc 06:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

You may be right. It is fairly standard on the wiki to have articles end in "-ism" if at all possible tho, for whatever reason. I havn't seen any policy on it tho, and its not a big deal one way or the other. I'm not merging that page anytime soon, I can tell you that! ;) Sam [Spade] 07:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

"Catholic Church"

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The trouble is that while roman catholics prefer to be the considered the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, so do all the other catholics. And while 95%+ of the time somebody says "catholic" they mean roman catholic, that can be seen as technically incorrect or unfair by an ancient catholic, or even by a protestant, etc.... Finially, this is problematic because "Roman" is often ment as an insult by detractors, and while it seems to be at least largely accepted by Roman catholics, they rarely self identify as "Roman" catholic. I'm not 100% sure you (Trc) wern't right because of this last, but until we have a better name for them ("Roman" Catholics) which doesn't necesarilly include all the other non-roman catholics, this is the best way to leave things which I can think of. Sam [Spade] 07:52, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help today, Sam Spade. To follow up on it, I think what I was getting at was that "Catholic Church" is a larger category than "Roman Catholic Church", and that "Roman Catholic Church" is in some sense a misnomer that is common but inaccurate. An encyclopedia ought to place things according to their true nature, and use redirects or shorter explanatory entries to clean up after popular misunderstandings. Anyway, the Eastern Rite Catholics are subject to the Pope. That's what I mean: "Catholic Church" can refer to everything under the Pope, including and through the Roman Church. The churches sui iuris are part of his authority. The purpose of this is not to avoid offense, but to seek accuracy. In a way the Catholicism page already suggests the issue, in the section that states that "[t]he Catholic Church is a federation of 24 self-governing (sui iuris) churches...." In other words, there's a thing called the "Catholic Church". Oh well, through collaborative writing it will gradually improve. Trc | [msg] 09:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

In this entry, it may be worth considering having the rites section link to existing pages, and making sure that the best of each information set is preserved. An entry exists for Eastern Rite and for Latin Rite, yet each is listed out here as well. Is it worth having them in both places? Trc | [msg] 09:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

the section beginning "[t]he Catholic Church is a federation of 24 self-governing (sui iuris) churches...." was one I had already noticed as being troublesome. The problem I see is that there are a number of people who consider themselves catholic but don't find communion thru the pope. I can't really say much more than that tho, and I know basically nothing about the rites (which I would ask you to expand apon in this and other respective articles if you have such ability). We need to maintain a clarification that there are more types of catholics than those who trace their hierarchy back to rome, and that we keep in mind that many of them (certainly Liberal, Ancient and Old) actively self identify as Catholic. As I've said before I'd like to hear about other doctrinal differences betwixt types of catholics other than just pope/no pope as well. Lots to do! :) Sam [Spade] 14:48, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is an argument for having a separate entry "Catholic Church." Almost all Christian sects consider themselves catholic: Lutherans, Orthodox churches (both Eastern and Oriental), The Assyrian Church of the East, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. They all also consider themselves to be a part of the catholic Church, i.e. the Church of Christ or the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. However, none of them consider themselves to be a part of the Catholic Church, i.e. the legal entity consisting of 24 churches in communion with each other and led by the Pope. In the same vein, members of the Catholic Church consider themselves to be orthodox, but they obviously are not a part of the Orthodox Church and do not consider themselves to be. Catholic Christians in England, since they are English, technically are a part of the church of England (i.e. the body of all English Christians), but they vehemently deny being a part of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion.

If you use the argument that having an entry for Catholic Church deal solely with the Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Oriental Catholic Churches would cause some people to be offended, then you're unfortunately going to have to remove entries for Orthodox Church and Church of England, since these terms are as cut and dry as Catholic Church. This of course would be stupid. The bottom line is that the terms anglican, orthodox, and catholic apply to many churches. The terms Anglican Church, Orthodox Church, and Catholic Church apply to very specific communions of churches. Thus, there should be an entry catholic which deals with various uses of the term catholic, catholicism which deals with various uses of that term with a link to Catholic Church, which deals with the specific communion of churches.

Some have objected that the communion of 24 churches should be placed under Roman Catholic Church. This is incorrect. The Roman Catholic Church is the church with Cardinals, the church that celebrates the Mass, the church that requires celibacy for priests and bishops, and the church in which bishops are appointed by the Pope. That does not apply to the 23 other churches. The Maronite Catholic Church, the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, and the other churches in the communion neither celebrate the Mass nor do they have Cardinals, nor are their priests required to be celebate, nor does the Pope appoint their bishops or patriarch (their bishops and their patriarch are elected by the other bishops in their church). They also are very opposed to being called Roman Catholic, since they are technically Maronite Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Syro-Malabar Catholic as the case may be. The point is that the Roman Catholic Church is only a section of the Catholic Church communion.

Regarding the sedevacantist churches, keep in mind that they claim to be the true Roman Catholic Church, not necessarily the true Catholic Church. The entry sedevacantism could be linked to at the beginning of Catholic Church, and it should definitely be linked to at the beginning of Roman Catholic Church. This solves the problem of other churches claiming to be other churches.

I think this takes care of all the ambiguities and eliminates all the confusion. Under this plan, all the churches which claim to be catholic get their say, all the churches which claim to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church or the Church of Christ get their say, all the churches claiming to be a part of the Catholic Church communion get their say ((aside from BozMo: except those not accepted as part of that communion by Rome)), and all the churches which claim to be the Roman Catholic Church get their say. Let me know if you have comments. Pmadrid 15:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If we were able to choose who was called what then perhaps you could present such an argument. Unfortunately various usages already exist and you are out of line with many of them. So the bottom line is if you wish to refer to "the Catholic Church" as those churches which Rome considers to be part of the Catholic Church you have to disambiguate against other definitions of the "Catholic Church", most notably those catholic churches which claim apostolic continuity to the Catholic side of the great schism. I know WP (if you look at the MetaWiki data) has a massive majority of Roman Catholics versus Anglicans partly because of the heavy US bias and perhaps we should just accept a PoV page because in the end other people don't have the energy to argue. Otherwise perhaps you might consider it that in the end the reputation of Roman Catholicism is improved by a serious attempt to represent other views and we can get a proper page like the Christianity page without a nihil obstat on it --BozMo|talk 17:40, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

+++ The foregoing comments are astute and factual. I encourage such a project. Trc | [msg] 15:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Terrible Mess

This article is still very POV and confused.

I think describing the official doctrinal position of Anglican Church as "some elements of Anglicanism" is rather silly as is the confusion between "high and low" church (which is about style of worship) and Evangelical versus Anglo-Catholic which is about belief. It is also very sad that we open quoting other dictionaries whereas as they seem to be there for dispute resolution they should be in the discussion pages.

Also the above comments on "Catholic Church" in the discussion pages perhaps qualify as official Roman doctrine but there are 60 million practicing Anglicans just as an example who belong to a church which officially declares itself to be part of the "Catholic Church", and who are used to declaring their belief in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" generally all in capital letter every Sunday without refering to the Pope and however unpalatable that is to some Roman Catholics who perhaps would like to own the word "Christian" aswell (wouldn't we all) it is widely recognised that catholic churches with apostolic succession falling on the Catholic side of the great schism are part of the "Catholic Church" rather than it being ones in communion with the Roman Church. I am just depressed that people are so partisan and don't even try to be correct to understand how anyone outside Romanism uses words. Okay, I know, there are only 60 million members of the Anglican communion against a billion RCs but that's partly counting and in any case tens of millions is enough aside other Catholics--BozMo|talk 16:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree in spirit, in several ways. It pained me as well to open with a dictionary quote but the opening prior to that one was just a horrid mish-mash of half-steps and conflicted misery. Your comments about "Catholic Church" bring up an important point: At this time on Wikipedia the world's largest organized religion is not cogently described anywhere. This is partly why there are such confusions on the various pages that relate to it. No, the CC does not wish to own the word "Christian", as it describes Protestants with that term. But your reply to User:Pmadrid failed to address his point, viz. that none of the groups using the word "Catholic" in their title have any wish to be in communion with the Roman Church, which is one of the Catholic particular churches in the Catholic Church. There is a clear structural entity which does not yet have clear exposition on the server. Trc | [msg] 06:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am so speechless with the suggestion that the Anglican communion does not wish to be in communion with Rome that I hope I keep calm. I can only assume you did not mean it. Extraordinary effort by Canterbury has been done to try to bring that about and it might have happened had not the last Pope died tragically. Please remember that every Roman Catholic is invited to take mass in the Church of England: it is the RC leadership which means many do not accept. The other way round I acknowledge many Roman Catholic priests and bishops invite Anglicans to communion with them (especially abroad, no RC bishop in the UK does this) but only at risk of official sanction. On your other point I agree totally there should be a proper page on the organisation which accepts papal authority and I do not object to it being called "the Catholic Church" but only if as I proposed there is a disambiguation at the top explaining that tens of millions of people mean something different by the expression. God bless --BozMo|talk 16:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How wonderful that we might be able to make some progress toward agreeing!! A disambiguation as per common usage is of course acceptable, even desirable, even necessary. Indeed the page "Catholic" is nothing but a large disambiguation project of sorts, and the "Catholic Church" entry could easily mention that. As for wanting to be in communion, I think that's true on both sides of the proverbial aisle. The Holy See has worked for it, as has the Anglican Communion. Where there are key disagreements, though, we must observe that communion is not yet in place. But it is so important to want to be one, to strive for it, and to love with that intention, for that is how Our Lord Himself prayed. We must never lapse into gratuitous separateness. Trc | [msg] 20:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Okay, so we seem to have agreement for a disambiguation. Bit technical for me any volunteers? --BozMo|talk 11:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As Trc pointed out, the RC Church doesn't claim to be the only Christian denomination. Perhaps it would be good to note what the official Catholic definition of a Christian is: acording to the RC Church, a Christian is any person who has been baptised (either by sprinkling or immersion) in the name of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. As you can see, the definition is quite inclusive and probably applies to most people who call themselves Christians (and perhaps even to some who don't). --Kpalion 16:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You mean of course the official Roman Catholic definition...but I know even JPII is in the WCC so yes I agree with you on the flippant point. However Roman Catholics choose to describe themselves as "Catholic" and the "Catholic Church" and that involves not only a choice of words but a certain number of implicit claims which are not accepted by other Catholics--BozMo|talk 17:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally personally for what it is worth I am a middle of the road low church evangelical Anglican Catholic. I believe I would become a Roman Catholic were it not for the fact I am convinced the Roman Catholic church is on the wrong side of English history (despite finding some concepts logically difficult). --BozMo|talk 17:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I guess the question to ask here is what do you call the union of the Roman Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, and others in that union? It can't just be 'Roman Catholic Church' because Roman does not apply to all of the churches. 'Papal Communion', might work, but it would accidently include sedevacantism in the communion, which is incorrect for both sides. Sedevacantists claim that John Paul II is illegitimate, and John Paul II claims that he is legitimate, but both sides accept a concept of papacy without being in communion with each other.

There needs to be an article encompassing the communion whose leader is John Paul II and his successors. It's unfortunately cumbersome to refer to this communion as anything but Catholic given modern parlance. Making the church be called in this encyclopedia "The Church Lead by Pope John Paul II" would be equivalent to asking Anglicans to refer to themselves as the "Church Whose Leader is the Archbishop of Cantebury" and asking the Eastern Orthodox Church to call itself the "Union of Autocephalous Churches Centering Around Constantinople." As I said before, Catholics assert their orthodoxy and English Catholics assert their membership in the church in England. So, why aren't we changing those names? Simple: they are the commonly used ones. We should follow naming conventions and keep this as simple as possible.

Now, let's look at some possibilities. Using 'Roman' to describe the entire communion has to be out. 'Roman Communion' and 'Roman Catholic Communion,' by insinuating this entire communion is Roman, is as equally insulting to Maronite Catholics as I bet insinuating that sedevacantists are not Catholic. 'Papal' is unfortunately too general. So, what do we call this thing? If we can just figure out a proper descriptor for this group of churches which isn't overly cumbersome and which a normal person would look up in an encyclopedia to find out about, we can get to writing good articles on the concept and belief system. Going off of the terms Eastern Orthodox Church and Anglican Communion, here are a few options I would like to offer:

Pmadrid 09:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Oldest Branch

It hink a member of an orthadox church, some of whom claim to trace their ancestry back to the time of Paul, would dispute that Catholicism is the oldest branch. Catholicism and Orthodox are surely the same age, wince they were origianlly one organisation. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly right. Being the same age, both can say that there is no branch that is older, but neither can claim to be the "only oldest". They were the same Church for the first millennium of Christianity, in full communion with each other. In fact, St. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was the bishop of Rome, if special weight is to be given to having Peter as one's bishop. But it would be severe hair splitting to call Antioch or Jerusalem older because of such first century considerations. Wesley 04:28, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias

The "Evil Empire" section by User:195.93.34.9 does not belong in this article, or in Wikipedia. It is nothing but slander and vituperation, and the weak qualifier "so goes the theory" does not excuse it (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms). -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People make these claims all the time; they might not belong in this article but there's certainly a place for them, if they can be properly attributed and contextualized. I note that Anti-Catholicism and Conspiracy theories about the Roman Catholic Church are currently red links. —No-One Jones (m) 03:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. It's the fact that currently it is utterly devoid of proper attribution and/or proper context that makes it in its current form, IMHO, utterly unsuitable for WP.
I think the idea that someone can post any sort of biased bigotry you want, and say that they're just "working on" a description of how some people hold these biased bigoted notions and therefore the material should be left in place until they get around to making it conform to basic standards, is a precedent that we absolutely do not want set. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


...I have submitted a more rounded version, "Criticisms of Catholicism". Nothing is asserted by the entry itself. It is now aundantly clear that "certain groups have suggested that..." If anybody wants to include the Catholic "answer" to each point as a counter-point, feel free. Bigotry for its own sake was never the intention. I merely wanted to balance a slightly biased article where only the positive sides to a religion have been touched upon.

What you have submitted is slightly less bad than previous versions, but it still shows you have failed to learn Wikipedia's standards. Even after you were pointed directly at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, you clearly failed to read it or pay it any attention. Just a few of the weasel terms you use:
  • "has been criticized by groups and individuals"
  • "has been accused of"
  • "Critics have argued that"
  • "Some groups assert that"
  • "Many historians assert that"
  • "Some groups are angry at the perceived notion"
  • "Some members of the Muslim community have"
  • "it is claimed"
That's eight weasel terms. Your "contribution" is eight sentences long.
Your idea that the material can be balanced if someone gives the Catholic "answer" to each point is also pretty empty, I must say, since the accusations are so vague it puts the Church in the position of trying to prove a negative. "The Catholic Church has been accused of burning many gospels and scrolls [...] that conflicted with the Vatican's agenda." "The Church says it didn't." "Some groups assert that the Vatican has knowingly suppressed ancient documents in order to protect its own interests." "The Church says it didn't." Yeah, real informative.
"I merely wanted to balance a slightly biased article where only the positive sides to a religion have been touched upon." This is, in full frankness, a rather pathetic attempt at a defense. Go back and read the article as it was before your tampering and tell me what positive sides of Catholicism were touched on? Was the preservation of ancient knowledge in monasteries through the Dark Ages touched upon? No, even though that is just as much a part of history as the Inquisition. Is the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the major charitable organizations in the world mentioned? No, it is not, even though that is a matter of public record, unlike the supposed Vatican suppression of ancient secret documents, for which we have the fact that "some" "groups" "assert" it to be so for a basis. The article is biased now, because you introduced that bias. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't this stuff belong in Roman Catholicism if it belongs anywhere? Talking about the Inquisition and most of the rest of these issues is specific to Roman Catholicism. Smerdis of Tlön 13:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The article is about the religion; User:195.93.34.9's smears are about the Roman Catholic Church. He says he was only trying to "balance" the article, but he might as well not have even read it: if he'd read it, he might have noticed that the word "Vatican" never even appeared, except in links, until he added his "balancing" accusations of Vatican misdeeds.
Frankly, I feel the material is still devoid of merit. For God's sake (no pun intended) with ten minutes and Google I could create a far better section on the subject, one whose claims are attributed and bear more relation to reality. It'd probably take me long to find the correct article to put it in (this one isn't it) than to find assertions that actually have some degree of substance and merit. In short -- I really question how long we should allow this to stay, waiting for it to be brought up to acceptable standards. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Updated. Please cut the newbie some slack. We've all got to learn, and vitriol is not the way to teach.
So you talk about yourself in the third person eh? We can see that it's you making this edit as well as adding the ridiculous vitriol that is onlky updated in being added back and is in the wrong article to begin with. Sheesh, cut it out. You've got a lot of edits all ready too, so I doubt you're that new.--Samuel J. Howard 02:12, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean "wrong article"? Where should I post it, under Lesbianism? I was jokingly using the third person and I AM fairly new, although AOL seems to make my IP number change each time I login to it. Some of my listed edits are not even me, so I don't know how it works. Anyway, stop being so anal.
OK, please register, that'll make it a lot easier to sort out your edits and see if they are agreeable. This is especially hard with AOL otherwise. Second, please sign your talk page comments by writing "--~~~~" after them . Finally, this article is about the term Catholicism and that structure broadly construed, including Anglo-Catholicsm, and Orthodoxy. Information specific to the Roman Catholic Church goes in the Roman Catholic Church article. However, the things you are writing don't really belong there either as they are very over the top POV. Many of them are academically discredited even.--Samuel J. Howard 03:16, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

If I decide to use this website on a long-term basis, I will create a 'proper' account. You say that some of the criticisms are accademically discredited, but they are opinions still held by many people. It is made obvious that they are just opinions - it is never claimed that any of them are right or wrong. Some of the POV stuff, especially the Arab invasion material, was added by another user although I've edited slightly (check the article history in detail).

I suggest editing and refining (or even re-writing) rather than deleting, otherwise I can just keep posting it back. Adding a Catholicism-related section to an article about Catholicism is not vandalism, but deleting an entire section might be.

Regardless of what some users may think, I believe that helping to put the subject "Catholicism" in a more relevant context (ie the world we live in, and the opinions of those in that world about the subject) can only be a good thing. If somebody wants to write something about the relative psychological benefits of the religion or whatever, this would be good too. Without such points, the information is neutral, yes, but without direct relevance to anything in particular. It is like writing an article on Nazism and forgetting to point out that many people thought/think Nazism was a bad idea. I may lack the writing skill, but I feel strongly that these kind of points are needed - yes, in THIS article.

After your stunt of changing people's words on the talk page, you have the gall to whine that deleting your worthless diatribes might be vandalism? and you think your threat that you "can just keep posting it back" is going to win people to your side -- how? Your contributions would be rewritten if they were worth rewriting, but you seem not to grasp the concept that "they are opinions still held by many people" is not, in and of itself, reason that they should belong in an encyclopedic article. You think you "put the subject 'Catholicism' in a more relevant context" by inserting conspiracy theories about the Vatican surpressing ancient documents? You think the article was lacking "direct relevance to anything in particular" until you put that in there? You're welcome to start your own wiki for yourself and any others who believe that; maybe you can call it TheEvilEmpirePedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Antaes, you come off sounding like a raving fanatic.

Ad hominem attacks upon me do not indicate any justice to your position.

Was your dad a Catholic priest or something?

Neither do ad hominem attacks on my family.

Sorry dude, but I can see the blood vessles bursting in your eyes making pretty red star-bursts as you bash the keys in self-righteous anger.

False. You do, not, in fact, "see" me. You do not have any information on my emotional state. Even if you did, merely being in an emotional state does not defend your own position.

Relax and get a life.

Even if I am "unrelaxed", even if I do not have "a life" as you define it, neither of these would be relevant to your position.

You ARE vandalizing the page by deleting relevant material,

I would be if I was. You misunderstand that what may be "relevant" to a barroom bull session is not necessarily relevant to an encyclopedic article. You vastly overrate the importance of your "contributions".

and a list of widespread opinions on a subject is obviously relevant to that subject.

Yes, that statement is true. Here are the reasons that this is not adequate defense of your material.
Firstly, only some of them are even opinions. Opinions are matters that have no factual answers, whereas accusations like "the Vatican has secretly surpressed documents that do not suit its agenda" are not opinions -- either they are true or they are false; either the stated acts occurred or they did not. Accusations should be held to a higher, tougher standard than mere opinions.
Secondly, you overestimate the degree to which these "opinions" and conspiracy theories are "widespread", and you fail to acknowledge that even "widespread" information is valueless out of context. You made no attempt to provide context. When challenged to give context, you gave weaseling instead. Holocaust denial is a "widespread" belief, probably more widespread than secret Vatican conspiracies; are you seriously suggesting that an article on Judaism is not complete, or "balanced", or "relevant", without unattributed balderdash about "Some critics say that a secret Jewish society, the Elders of Zion, not only started World War II to increase their own profits but faked the deaths of six million Jews in order to cover their tracks"? That's a widespread "opinion", by your mis-definition of "opinion", but I hope for your sake that you would be ashamed to put down such meritless trash anywhere.
Thirdly, you obviously never intended to follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy; titling your section "The Evil Empire" makes that clear enough. You have gone through a number of defenses for your failure in this regard: claiming first that the article was already biased towards the Vatican agenda (despite the fact that the Vatican was barely mentioned) and that you were only "balancing" it; then that you had the right to bias the article in the negative direction and it would be someone else's job to balance it with "the Church's answer". If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, it's your responsibility to know the NPOV policy, to understand it, to post in accordance with it. Don't expect others to come in and clean up after your failure.
Fourthly, you did not even get the right subject. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, this is the article on Catholicism. It is not even the article on Roman Catholicism, let alone the article on the Roman Catholic Church, which is the true subject of your attacks.

Do you go to the Nazism article and delete all references to groups who had the audacity to question or challenge Hitler with their opinions?

No, I do not. I have not in fact done any editing to the Nazism article, although apparently unlike you, I have read it. You previously stated that omitting your slurs upon the Catholic Church was like omitting from the article on Nazism the opinion that lots of people think it's bad, but you obviously didn't read that article; the accusations there are actually documented, and the true opinions are actually widespread. In other words, absolutely irrelevant to your purported point.

Your moronic EvilEmpirePedia joke doesn't make you right.. -- ClarityMS07 02:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, the fact that I am abiding by Wikipedia policy and you are violating it is what puts me in the right. My EvilEmpirePedia joke simply drives home the fact that you came in here with a hate-on for the Catholic Church and your goal is not to make a more "informative" or "relevant" article, it's to make the article a forum for your own propaganda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well you've just vandalized my talk comments after complaining about having the same done to you, but I'll let it go.
It's good that you do so. You would have a very hard time convincing anyone that I "vandalized" your comments merely by inserting my own responses, clearly separated from your comments, between sentences or separated clauses of sentences. The distinction between responding to someone's comments and altering them, as you did, may be a distinction that is unclear to you. Rest assured, other people have less trouble recognizing the difference.

That was me, User:195.93.34.9 (although the IP seems to jump all over the place). Throwing accusations at other users or friends of mine just makes you look daft. If you want to ban or block anybody, then I'm the one who did that out of frustration (and because I have a childish sense of humour). However, about 30 kids use this internet connection, so you'd be banning a lot of ppl if they ever wanted to use this site.

I see you have decided to disect every little sentence, picking out little semantic things to make yourself appear to be 'in the right'.
I have decided to hold all of your unexamined assumptions up to scrutiny, so that even if you are too stubborn to be able to see their flaws yourself, everyone else will be able to.

'Everyone' will merely infer that you have little do do but nitpick every little sentence for semantic errors and such, taking everything literally and getting yourself very stressed.

When I said I can 'see' you becoming a boiling couldron of rage, for example, I thought it was pretty obvious I didn't mean it literally. The tone of your words made it clear that you were virtually foaming at the mouth while taking my talk comments to pieces.
Yes, I understood that. I merely made two points:
  • You presented it as if it was fact, when in fact it was merely a guess on your part;
  • You presented it as if it was relevant, when that is a classic example of the _ad hominem_ fallacy.

Can't really comment, but you do come across as a walking time-bomb. I hope you don't do anything silly and get yourself on the TV news.

You state that the points are propaganda. Incorrect; they are relevant and widespread opinions about the subject.
So you feel the same about theories of Jewish banking cartels? Those are "widespread" opinions and have the same relevance to Judaism.

Actually, yes. I, for one, do. If presented in the right way, they would be fine. Knowing that about contraversal opions that many people hold can be an eye-opener, in that case about Jewish banking cartels.

You state that the only purpose of them is to spread my own views. Again incorrect; in fact, they are not even my views in particular.
Let's see, you're accusing me of semantic quibble -- and then you claim that the views you have been insistently hammering into the article, ignoring Wikipedia's three-revert rule to do so, are not even your own? As if whether you believe them is actually relevant to whether they belong in the article?

From what I can tell, three or four different users have re-posted that section. They are MY opinions (I started that whole 'Evil Empire' thread at the begining), but ClarityMS probably doesn't if he says not. You seriously need to go back and look at the article history in detail. You seem confused (this is an 'opinion').

They are, however, relevant and common opinions about the subject and no amount of whining will change that.
You know, this may not have occurred to you, but simply repeating "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right" over and over in different phrasing doesn't bolster your case. What is relevant to an article on Catholicism is material which relates to Catholicism. Not accusations levelled against the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican.

"I'm right, I'm right, I'm right" seems more what you are doing than anyone else. The Roman Catholic Church is central to Catholicism, as you well know. If the Church institution died, the whole religion would probably cease to exist in one or two years. The Faith is dying worldwide even with the Church doing its 'evil empire' stuff. Whatever my ideas are, though, the Roman Catholic church and Catholicism as a whole go hand in hand. Hmm, I wonder if the Pope is a Catholic.

You state that I have not read the Nazism article. Incorrect again. I have, and I agree it does far better what I'm trying to do here. This doesn't mean that the points in this article are invalid.
No, all the reasons which have already been explained to you, which you have failed to adequately answer, mean the points are invalid. The only point you even come close to answering is that they are not relevant and common, and your only answer to that was "are too!"

You are saying "they are not" without any valid explanation, and others have said "they are too!" Since the relevance and extent of these ideas are obvious, that's all that needs to be said. It would be like one of use trying to "prove" the sun is hot to somebody who keeps repeating, "no it's not, heat is relative" It comes down to wording and your particular stance I suppose, if you refuse to see the obvious relevance.

If you are unhappy with the wording, change it.
You know, up until the point where you vandalized the talk page, I might have considered doing so. But you know something? Wikipedia's collaborative structure allows us to step in and help fellow users if those users have, say, completely failed to adhere to NPOV. It does not oblige us to do so, particularly not for a vandal who has stated that he feels it should be someone else's duty to make his contributions WP-worthy.

Well, that was me vandalising the page. You can't claim everybody who disagrees with you are guilty of the same act. In fact, I think you must be willfully, knowingly, throwing those fallicious accusations. I did it, but then I am a childish imp. I admit it. Freely. Bite me.

If you feel more should be done to state opposite oppinions from those listed PLEASE do so.
If the criticisms you level were on the correct article, which they are not, then there might be some point in responding with a rebuttal.

They are on the correct article, but you refuse to accept it. Whay can a guy do?

I will never delete or even tamper with them. Try it.
And the fact that you thought tampering with the talk page and vandalizing the comments of everyone who disagreed with you was perfectly fine behavior gives me such confidence in the integrity of that promise.

ClarityMS seems to have integrity. Well, he may have. The point is, you have no real grounds for attacking him. It was I do deleted the various comments and twisted your snide remarks into self-mockery. Ban me if you wish. I can just go to an internet cafe or use a friends computer, while everyone else would suffer from my actions.

You state that the title "evil empire" makes it obvious that the Criticisms section is obviously nothing more than propaganda. Well, you obviously haven't even looked at the article. The title is actually "Criticisms of Catholicism", about as neutral a title as you can get.
Wow, you just forget every bit of the past that's inconvenient for you, don't you? And you think that as soon as you've forgotten it, we have too.

Again, you are (willfully?) confusing two users. You seem intelligent, so perhaps you are doing so with full knowledge of your 'mistake'. If so, what does that say about YOUR integrity?

I can only conclude that you are deleting it without even reading it if you can't get the title right.
I can only conclude that you have no interest in taking responsibility for your decisions, since you are now trying to deny that you gave that section exactly that title when you first imposed it on the article.

See above, above, above...

1. The criticisms are all common opinions, they do not need to be a scientific objective fact.
As discussed before, some of them are opinions, some of them are accusations. You have failed to respond to this point and until you do, your failure to answer will be interpreted as your having no answer.

It's already been answered. Can you not read?

2. It is clear from the wording that they are obviously just opinions.
It is clear from the wording that some of them are opinions and that some of them are unsubstantiated allegations that do not come with any verification, or even enough specifics to make them falsifiable.
It is clear from the fact that you keep describing them, falsely, as "just opinions", that you do not comprehend or choose not to comprehend the distinction between matters of opinion and matters of fact. Here are some examples:
Matters of opinions: "The belief that the Vatican has secretly surpressed documents that undermine its agenda is a widespread belief."
Matters of fact: "The Vatican has secretly surpressed documents that undermine its agenda." Not that merely being a matter of fact is not the same thing as being a fact; being a matter of fact simply means that it is either true or it is false, and it is not a matter of opinion. Adding "Some critics believe" or "some people believe", of course, is weaseling.
Matters of opinion: "You were angry when you wrote your response."
Matters of fact: "The user now known as ClarityMS07 vandalized this talk page on September 17, 2004. He entirely removed multiple sections of the talk page, which spelled out flaws in his article that are still there in the current version, such as its reliance on weaseling and his expectation that it is others who must balance his contributions to restore POV. He materially altered the commentary of two separate users, both so that they appeared to be praising his contributions instead of identifying serious problems with them, and altered one section of a user's commentary merely to make it appear that that user was denigrating his own abilities."

Please. Spare us. How can you post the above with a straight face? user ClarityMS07 did not vandalize the talk page. Is this a deliberate attempt at misinformation. If you, you overlook the fact that anybody can read the page history. Jeeez.

3. The section does NOT have strong POV, despite claims to the contrary; it never once states that any of these common opinions are anything other than opinions, or that they should be taken as truth. It is painfully obvious that any such opinion can be taken 'with a pinch of salt'.
If you are saying this with a straight face, you clearly have little understanding of NPOV. By merely putting your "common opinions" and your accusations into the article, you are expressing the POV that, despite your lip service that they should be 'taken with a pinch of salt', they are nevertheless credible enough that no one who comes to read about Catholicism should go away unaware that some people believe in malign Vatican surpression of secret gospels. That's not NPOV. It probably wouldn't be NPOV even if you put it in the correct article.

You are twisting things. Yes they should be aware of these opinions if they came to the page wanting a lot of information and a lot of different perspectives on the subject. Which they would be.

4. Common views of a subject, right or wrong, are obviously relevant to the subject.
You have never explained, despite the question being posed to you numerous times, why "common views" on the actions of The Roman Catholic Church are relevant to the subject of Catholicism -- the religion which the Roman Catholic Church follows. I might have cut you some slack -- before the vandalism incident, that is -- if you had ever answered that question or tried to address that criticism. But instead you've simply ignored it and whined "is too, is too! An article about a belief system is so the correct place to put criticisms of a particular hierarchy which follows that belief system!"

Ideas that millions of people hold about the RCC is not relevant to Catholicism? Wha-? Come on. You can do better than that. No matter how clever you phrase the "it's not relevant" statement, it clearly is, and everybody can see that it is.

There is no justification for removing them if they are presented as mere opinions, which they are.
I'd say "see above" but you've clearly read it thirty or more times by now and never even attempted to answer. I don't see why I shouldn't remove material that's mislabelled in the mistaken hope that this justifies it being in the wrong article.

Again, you have yet to convincingly establish that it is in the wrong article. It is in exactly the right article.

There would be justification for making this fact even clearer, but not deleting because you disagree with the opinions themselves.
See above.

See above.

There would also be justification for adding other common opinions that are opposite to those presented in the criticisms section.
There would be justification, if they were relevant to Catholicism, the belief system, and not just to the Roman Catholic Church, the entity.

The entity and the belief system are hand and glove. If you can't see any connection, I worry for your highly trained mind.

This perhaps needs a section of its own. If nobody else adds it, I probably will.
Even if they were the most glowing possible commendations of the Roman Catholic Church ever, they would still not belong in this article. And if they are of the same quality, i.e. unsupported accusations with weasel phrases tacked on, they would still be NPOV and I would be as adamant that they deserve removal.

I for one have decided to disagree that there should be a seperate section advocating catholicism. However, for the sake of consistency, Id be willing (if not happy) to leave it there.

If you reply, please do not edit my comments or remove my user name. Enough of this childishness.
Your user name was accidentally deleted in an edit because you did not put it into your edit of 02:11, 18 Sep 2004. You did not add it in until the edit of 02:31, 18 Sep 2004, by which time my edit had already started. If you've ever been in that situation, you realize that merging into your own edit changes that someone else made during your edit can be a tricky business (then again, if you haven't been in Wikipedia long enough to grasp NPOV or the avoidance of weaseling, you're not likely to have encountered a merge situation in such a short time.) I incorporated your correction of "there" to "their", and failed to notice the second change you had made in that edit. It has been repaired now.

Hmmmmmm...

Your comments have never been edited to alter their meaning. That is more respect than you have shown to me and to other users. I could have easily edited out your reprehensible personal insults suggesting my father was a Catholic priest. I could have edited out your unflattering, baseless and ultimately irrelevant description of me bursting "blood vessles" [sic] in anger. I could have edited your comments to make it look like you could even spell my name right. I did not do any of that and considering your acts of vandalism, you are nothing but a raging hypocrite for pretending that my interspersing my comments in a clearly identified fashion with yours is some great violation of your rights.
I suggest putting your intelligence to some use, ie adding content or editing it rather than mindlessly deleting.
You're right. I will not mindlessly delete. I will mindfully delete where appropriate, mindful of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and of the distinction between Catholicism the belief system and the Roman Catholic Church which is one of the adherents of that belief system.

Heil to that.

I will do likewise.
You will put your intelligence to some use? That'd be nice to see. Do let us know when you start. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From what I can see, he started with his first repost. I use my own limited brain to do sneaky and subversive things like frightening owls and corrupting data on LANs. Or something.

--ClarityMS07 14:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


This edit by -195.93.32.8 01:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Messed up in the head

ah, so you want us to believe that ClarityMS07 edited this page from the IP address of 195.93.32.8 on the following occasions:
  • 00:59, 18 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
  • 00:57, 18 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
  • 00:56, 18 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
  • 02:29, 17 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
  • 02:07, 17 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
  • 01:26, 16 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
  • 01:25, 16 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
but these two edits:
  • 00:54, 17 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
  • 00:51, 17 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
were, naturally, the work of some other user -- that is, you -- who just happened to go to the exact same page and vandalize the comments of the users who just happened to be criticizing ClarityMS07's work. It's entirely coincidental that within a period of 24.5 hours, the IP address switched from one user so obsessed with the Talk:Catholicism page that for nearly 48 hours he edited that page and no other while under that IP, to another user who, again, edited only that page and no other. And then switched back again, just an hour and a half later.

Wow, two users who are close friends, using computers on a network sitting on desks next to each other, actually discussing this nutty guy Antaues and his catholicism rants... and they BOTH post on Catholicism in a short period of time!?!?! Wow, that is totally unbelievable and impossible!!! Surely!!!! (I'd better point out that I'm being sarcastic, or you'll take this to be a reinforcement of your fallicious statements. -195.93.32.8 03:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. It is unbelievable. And I thought you didn't realize how weak and implausible your story was because you didn't understand how Wikipedia works. Now I know it's because you don't understand how IP addressing works either.

That is funny. The person you are refering to has been studying computer science for two years, and he doesn't know anything about IP addresses? Do you even know what IP stands for? Why do you continually make these wild assumptions when there is obviously no way you could know about a person on the other end of an internet connection?

You know something? If I had had any temptations to think you were acting in good faith, ClarityMS07, this destroyed them. You're a Johnny-come-lately who thinks he can tell any lie he likes and get away with it; you don't realize how transparent your lies or how loudly they scream your message of "Screw you, Wikipedia; I think you're a bunch of morons who can be tricked and bullied into carrying my propaganda for me." If you had had the common courtesy and the guts to apologize for your vandalism -- oh, but what's the point? You don't. You don't have the honesty to stand behind your deeds; you don't have the class to apologize for the shots you take below the belt; you don't have the intellectual honesty to add anything of value to Wikipedia. This latest sockpuppetry is just more of the same. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"You're just a bunch of morons"? No, only one springs immediately to mind. -195.93.32.8 03:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? You are getting your knickers in a twist, and you you are so off the mark it is nearly beyond belief.

  • 00:54, 17 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)
  • 00:51, 17 Sep 2004 195.93.32.8 ("Evil Empire" is for tracts, not encyclopedias)

Have I said that these comments weren't me or tried to deny them?

Yes, by trying to pretend that "me" is not the same person as ClarityMS07.

There you go again. Assuming things when you have no information to base those assumptions upon. You are not physically here. For all you know, there could be ten of us sitting around this monitor right now. In fact, there are four people in here - one of whom is somebody you having been calling a "disturbed loser", although I'm not sure which of us is supposed to accept the insult.

lol@Antaeus for leaping to totally false conclusions *yet* again. You can yell at ClarityMS07 all you want, I don't care one bit, but you are completely wrong. He is not me. I'll yell at him with you if it makes you happy. There are two, (possibly three) users using this internet connection to look at this site from this building. There are about 30 other ppl who could have accessed the site, but this is a matter of speculation. Despite this, I've never tried to deny posting anything. I've actually said loud and clear: I TAMPERED WITH THE TALK PAGE as a one off. And: I CREATED THE EVIL EMPIRE THREAD. How is that trying to deny anything? Did you actually read my comments? Your loopy comments are beyond astounding.

Oh, certainly I read your comments. Remember? I dissected them in detail and you moaned and whined that interleaving my comments with yours was vandalism?

No, deleting my user information was minor vandalism, but I already dropped the issue.

Oh, yes, I perfectly understand your claims that you are a completely different person from ClarityMS07. I just don't believe them in the least.

Neither of us care. Believe what you wish to believe. Hold whatever delusions you want to hold.

Listen very carefully. I'll type this really slowly so that you can understand:

195.93.32.8 = 195.93.32.8 (probably always the same user (as far as I know))

ClarityMS07 = ClarityMS07 (somebody completely different)

(me)

Get it? Do you understand? Is dribble forming on your chin as you try to work it out in your head?

Dear oh dear. I thought I'd seen it all.

-195.93.32.8 03:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know, it's a real laugh watching you,
You are by far the funnier.
ClarityMS07/195.93.32.8, criticize someone else on the issue of reading comprehension. I understand your claim perfectly; I also understand the technical reasons why it is BS.
What technical reasons, you bull-headed, arrogant so-and-so? Why can't you concieve of two seperate individuals in the same room accessing this site with the same connection? Let me explain the logic to you. Two people can use one system. If they do so, they do not suddenly cease to be seperate individuals and merge into one collective mass of organs and limbs.
I'm sorry, should we have announced the fact that we were not the same person when we began to post on wikipedia, sure in the knowledge that some paranoid loony would accuse us of being one mysterious entity composed of two merged humanoid forms?
I suggest stepping into the bathroom for a moment and looking in the mirror. If there are dark bags under your blood-shot eyes and your face is twitching constantly, I strongly suggest that you try to get some sleep.
You remind me strongly of a sad, pathetic, disturbed man who stalked a girlfriend of mine for a period of a year or so.
You expect anyone to believe that somebody like you ever had a girlfriend? Please.
You both logic in the same way, starting from the conclusion you want to reach and then switching as need be to any argument you think supports that conclusion. ("Hey! I was just trying to rescue an article that was biased toward the Vatican! ... The article didn't discuss the Vatican? Oh, then it must be that I'm allowed to smear the Vatican and someone else is allowed to say nice things about it! It's your fault the article is biased now!")
What? This rant is meaningless. Were you on some strong medication yesterday?
You both think that, no matter how blatantly obvious who it is that the harassment is coming from, that you have covered your tracks perfectly and therefore anyone who accuses you of what you have, in fact, done, is leaping to unjustified conclusions. You know, you really ought to seek help.
One of us certainly does.
Even if you just started doing this to cover your tracks, such compartmentalization can't be good for you. ("I am saintly ClarityMS07, and I am so wonderful and good that if you suggest I have done anything wrong, you are a stupid idiot with dribble forming on your chin because clearly I, ClarityMS07, have never done anything wrong and only a fool could believe so. It must have been done by that evil homonculus, 195.92.32.8, who talks like me and thinks like me and goes all the same places I go and does all the things that serve my purposes but that don't fit with my saintliness.") -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You know the funniest thing? You denounce valid criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church as 'Wild Conspiracy Theories', and then you go and post something like the above paranoid rant. Your 'belief' that I and Zach Stanton (aka user 195.92.32.8) are really somehow the 'same person' (despite detailied article history that suggests otherwise) is really irrelivant; however it does go to show that you are more of a conspiracy theorist than either of us.
So please everyone enjoy reading the above entertaining saga of Antaeus Feldspar. He seems a very, very uptight (and potentially explosive) person who does not get out much. My ameteur diagnosis would suggest that he is also extremely paranoid and should be approached with caution. However, he is also a very funny little man and you will doubtless be entertained his amusing words, although some readers may find them disturbing.
-ClarityMS07 00:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And look, this is ME!!! a different person sitting at the same desk!!! unbelieveable!!
note: I have corrected the indenting for ClarityMS07/195.92.32.8, since he still has not figured out how it works. His content is not worth responding to at this point, it's still just the same "is too, is too!" assertions and more personal attacks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's right, bail out and continue to pretend that it is impossible for two people to access a site from one computer ("oh, it's cuz of... erm, 'technical reasons'", you mutter under your breath). Continue to pretend to somehow 'know' that two indviduals are actually one, despite the fact that you've never stepped foot in this place or met any of us. This is wise.

I for one am getting sick and tired of this article. Trying to rv valid sections of the article while these fascistic book-burning types continually resort to prissy censorship while trying to claim the moral high-ground... is just plain boring. Maybe someone else will take up the fight. If so, maybe I'll return to help at some point.

Before I go, a warning: I advise caution when reading Cardinal Feldspar's insidious propaganda (it's sure to come in bucket-loads after this), and that of his bible-wielding friends. Also watch out for his subtle tampering with the talk page. So desperate is he to 'prove' the validity of his stance that he's likely to write several novel-length critiques of some edited version of everything I am saying here. For now, his fantacial censorship crusade has worked (hurrah for you). However, you can always re-post the deleted material by viewing the article history. Watch out for the poor guy's blood pressure though.

Peace.

The disputed section is not valid, for reasons that have repeatedly been explained. Anyone who is actually willing to address the reasons that have been put forth is welcomed to do so here on the talk page. However, since one of the reasons the section is not valid is that this is the wrong article for it, they may wish to consider turning their attention instead to the correct article, Roman Catholic Church.
Those who might be wondering, because of ClarityMS07/195.93.32.8's accusations, whether well-written and NPOV criticisms on that article would be "censored" due to their content, are invited to check the edit history on the article and see who was the last one to expand the criticisms section. This user's insults and accusations to the contrary, his edits were reverted because of their unacceptably poor quality, not because of their content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have changed one of the subject headings from the wholly inaccurate "Criticisms of Catholicism" to the correct "Criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church". Anyone who wishes to revert it back is invited to list the logic for doing so here on the talk page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholicity/Archive_3&oldid=808284830"