Talk:Fiducia supplicans

Unbalanced representation within article

Right now, the article excludes why the declaration was so controversial, and this certainly needs added. The attention given to it has been based on the notion that this is a first stepping stone towards the church accepting same-sex marriage.

• Completely gone is any mention that it is widely considered to be a stepping stone towards future same-sex marriages within the Catholic Church.

• The article defaults to what has been (prejudicial phrasing but I do not have a better word for it) "popesplaining" the document. Despite the fact that this is a minority viewpoint and has been widely mocked among most Catholics.

• How European churches are reacting in the aftermath.

With the current wording, readers wouldn't even grasp why the document has gotten so much attention among the faithful. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• the article excludes why the declaration was so controversial: do you have an addition proposal supported by RSs?
• Completely gone is any mention that it is widely considered to be a stepping stone towards future same-sex marriages within the Catholic Church: I have not see any RS talking about this. And only the opinion of the consensus of reliable historians should be added for such claims, an opinion which I think will be formed only after a while.
• The article defaults to what has been (prejudicial phrasing but I do not have a better word for it) "popesplaining" the document. Despite the fact that this is a minority viewpoint and has been widely mocked among most Catholics: I do not understand argument, you have not explained what the POV information was nor provided RSs to support your accusation of WP:FRINGE-pushing.
• How European churches are reacting in the aftermath: there is a whole paragraph dedidated to this. What do you propose to add?

Veverve (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

have not see any RS talking about this. European bishops have repeatedly, explicitly, and confidentally stated it is a stepping stone towards future same-sex marriages in the Catholic Church. In the same way, the whole reason that there has been a widespread controversy among conservative Catholics is that they agree that this is the case as well, just that they see this as a bad thing.

do you have an addition proposal supported by RSs My proposal would be to simply mention this perception in the lead. I do not believe we need historians (have any even commented on this yet?) to confirm the obvious. There's a multitude of news stories and opinion articles mentioning this perception.

you have not explained what the POV information Claiming that Catholic doctrine hasn't innovated or developed is bias. Conservatives are widely concerned that this is exactly this. StardustToStardust (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You have not given a single RS to support your claims despite being told to do so multiple times. Veverve (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This states that the 2021 statement is overturned.

This is just one of the many articles stating that it was widely seen as a stepping stone towards a revised stance on homosexuality within the church. (Which is why conservatives have criticized it.) StardustToStardust (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot claim that those opinions are in the majority if you do not provide more than one source. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

* Catholic philosopher Edward Feser states it here.

* Associated Press states the same.

* Reuters declares similar.

* Washington Post repeats the claim.

Has any reliable, mainstream source contradicted any of this? The criteria for the other statement is even less. Since all we're stating is that the document has been seen as a stepping stone, an uncontroversial statement if there ever was one. The controversy wouldn't exist otherwise. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Feser's WP:BLOG is not a RS
• I agree that those three RSs indeed state the 2021 decision is reversed by FS.

Veverve (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being removed, then. Although from what I can tell WP: BLOG doesn't apply to experts who self-publish. Edward Feser would qualify as this.

Lamb's opinion is at the very least a significant minority. I'd say an overwhelming majority of conservatives and liberal bishops have interpreted it as a stepping stone: for better or worse. We don't need more than one citation to make a point. The whole reason the document is controversial is this. StardustToStardust (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Lamb's opinion is at the very least a significant minority. I'd say an overwhelming majority of conservatives and liberal bishops have interpreted it as a stepping stone: "Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed." - Jimmy Wales. Veverve (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If multiple sources like AP, Reuters, Washington Post and CNN all state the same thing, then it's safe to assume it's a strong minority opinion at very least. Completely removing everything from the article is wrong. Why would the declaration be controversial if nothing substantive has changed? StardustToStardust (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Fernandez said this morning the union was not blessed. 2600:1006:B125:A67C:D871:8BF4:ACE4:B90 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and this is already mentioned in the article in the 'Contents' part. Veverve (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Then dont say in the opening that the 2021 document was reversed. It was not 2600:1006:B125:A67C:D871:8BF4:ACE4:B90 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@StardustToStardust: You are defying consensus here. Other editors have consistently opposed this "stepping-stone" comment—especially since it is explicitly not in any source. You are encouraged to self-rev. I count at least five other editors who have explicitly opposed the insertion of your original research statements and two editors who have informed you that the use of blog source here is inappropriate. If you want a very policy explanation as to why the blog source is inappropriate here, consider that you are using the Feser source to make sweeping claims about general interpretation by conservatives—he is not an expert on aggregating pastoral practices nor an expert in canon law. Please adhere to consensus, refrain from POV-pushing (you have a perspective about how this declaration should be interpreted that contradicts most reliable sources), and quit edit warring. ~ Pbritti ([[User talk--92.76.107.35 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC):Pbritti|talk]]) 20:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It's in the source here, @Pbritti:. None of this is original research. It's directly cited: "Francis has not gone down that route, but the pastoral openness he’s modelled to gay people lays the foundation stones for even more significant reforms in the future."

From what I can tell of WP: BLOG it has no impact on experts who self-publish. Would Edward Feser not meet this? We can debate about weight. What shouldn't be done is blanketly deleting any mention of this from the article, despite a large amount of sources mentioning exactly this. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It is one source's information; you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to Lamb's analysis. If truly an overwhelming majority of conservatives and liberal bishops have interpreted it as a stepping stone then multiple sources for this claim should be either easy to find currently or be easy to find in the following days or weeks. And Feser's blog is not a RS, for the reasons Pbritti has explained (to which other reasons can of course be added). Veverve (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

European bishops from the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark have stated it is an innovation and development of doctrine. Regardless of whether the Feser source is credible or not, Reuters and Associated Press are certainly not. There are multiple RS's that make this claim. What's the definition of "fringe" here? StardustToStardust (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour at once please. You have been linked WP:V and WP:RS already. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@StardustToStardust: I ask you to self-revert and to go back to this version. If you feel there is POV, removing what was there before and adding back what others have opposed you adding is clearly not the way to go. Veverve (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Its a proven falsehood that this document reversed 2021 cdf document. The Cardinal even said so 2600:1006:B125:A67C:D871:8BF4:ACE4:B90 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

most bishops in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Spain and Portugal support Fiducia supplicans. That should be mentioned in the article. The supporting votes are all missing in article. --92.76.107.35 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Changing the introduction

Currently the article says: "Fiducia supplicans is a 2023 declaration on Catholic doctrine that allows Catholic priests to bless couples who are not considered to be married according to church teaching, including same-sex couples"

But Fiducia Supplicans always says "couples in irregular situations and couples of the same sex" and not "couples who are not considered to be married according to church teaching, including same-sex couples"

The change would be:

"Fiducia supplicans is a 2023 declaration on Catholic doctrine that allows Catholic priests to bless couples in irregular situations and couples of the same sex" --Rafaelosornio (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: plenty of sources to justify the interpretation previously in the article, which is much more descriptive for readers than "irregular situations". IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: as per IgnatiusofLondon. Veverve (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: per first two editors' opinions, above. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Supporting bishops in different european countries

In Austria, came full support from Roman catholic Austrian bishops, for example archbishop Franz Lackner in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Salzburg, bishop Josef Marketz in Roman Catholic Diocese of Gurk or bishop Wilhelm Krautwaschl in Roman Catholic Diocese of Graz-Seckau.

In Switzerland came full support by Swiss bishops for Fiducia supplicans.

In France came full support by French Roman Catholic bishop conference for Fiducia supplicans.

In Portugal came full support by Portugues Roman Catholic bishop conference for Fiducia supplicans.

In Spain most Spanish bishops support Fiducia supplicans for example archbishop José Cobo from Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Madrid.

In Italy most Italian bishops support Fiducia supplicans for example bishop Matteo Zuppi from Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bologna, President of the Italian Episcopal Conference. That should be mentioned in article. --92.76.107.35 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how closely you've followed the article's evolution, but there was consensus to avoid a "list of opponents", and I think the same likely applies to a "list of supporters". It's fine to add a few sentences like we have for opponents, with possibly one or two quotations if the sources provide a commentary or perspective not mentioned elsewhere in the article...

Several episcopal conferences barred the blessings in their jurisdictions or asked priests to refrain from them, including the conferences of Benin, Congo-Brazzaville, Hungary, Malawi, Namibia, Togo, and Zambia. The Polish Episcopal Conference suggested only blessing "individual people living in complete abstinence".

...but I think separate paragraphs/sentences is overkill. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

in the article is a overkill of opponents, and supporting bishops, bishops conferences of most european countries are missing in article. --92.76.107.35 (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and there were contributing editors who admitted they wanted to ensure opposition to the document was well-recorded. But what's true for their edits has to be true for everyone's. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

in the article are all the supporting bishops/archbishops and bishop conferences from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Spain and Portugal are missing.--92.76.107.35 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Wholly agree with IgnatiusofLondon. We definitely need to note the broad European episcopal support, but creating individual, formulaic paragraphs is the wrong approach. A list of supportive episcopal conferences is the right approach. Just be sure to stick to what the sources say and use the actual titles of the sources (I saw some bad paraphrasing in the German bishops passage). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

References

new short passage to supporting bishop conferences in Europa:

"Several episcopal conferences supported the blessings in their jurisdictions, including the conferences in Austria, in Belgium, in France, in Germany, in Italy, in Malta, in Portugal , in Spain and in Switzerland." 92.76.107.35 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

References

"other commentators said that the 2021 ruling was still effective": Catholic Answers

To what extend is Catholic Answers to be used? I do not think Catholic Answers should be used, since it is essentially one of the dozens of Catholic commentary websites, it is not a RS at all and even less a neutral source. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's suboptimal but fine for supporting the claim that "other commentators said that the 2021 ruling was still effective". The current wording renders it clear that it's a claim/opinion, and Catholic Answers is among the most well-known Catholic commentary sites. That being said, I'd be confident there are better sources out there in the Catholic or secular press. It is also worth noting that it is one of two sources used to support the sentence. It would be better if the source were attributable to a subject notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, too. My two cents are thus not to fret, but do swap the source if you come across something better. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)