Talk:Law of gradualness

Apology

I don't think Hogan and LeVoir spoke of growth in vices (a process contrary to the what's here called the law of gradualness). Their comment, and the phrase "Pope John Paul II taught that 'we are always bound by the moral teachings'", surely belong to the section that explains that the law of gradualness does not mean exemption from or reduction of the moral law, gradualness of the law; and not to the section on "growth towards goodness". But to check this, I would have to go back to an earlier version, since the links no longer work. So I have regretfully reverted to such a version. If the version I have reverted from is restored, please ensure that the links work. Esoglou (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I should apologize. I don't know how I screwed up the references that badly, but then I just couldn't get those two to work correctly. So, in the end I used the references exactly as you wrote them, but moved them to the References section. In the future, would you mind putting your citations down there as you go? If it's an issue for you then I understand and I will just move them myself, as I find that (like the section on avoiding clutter in WP:CITEFOOT) it becomes very difficult to read and work in the edit window when they are in the middle of prose.

As for where that text should go, I didn't read the full source, and perhaps my paraphrase was inaccurate. However, the following lines seem to me that they are more about growing towards goodness than about the difference between graduality and gradualness: "There is a growth in virtue. The moral precepts always bind, but they become easier for us to practice." Also, in case you are wondering why I paraphrased them, it's because per WP:BQ quotes of more than 40 words or so should be block quoted, and I didn't think that paragraph was so special that it deserved that kind of treatment. Plus, as a personal preference, I don't particularly care for them without a very good reason. Finally, thanks for your collaboration on this with me.--Briancua (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. In this article, which I expect not to have to edit much longer, I will try to fit in with your preference, which you see as clutter-avoiding, but which I see as making it more difficult to edit a section on its own, making it necessary to go elsewhere to edit references in it. It also involves using something more complicated than a simple "Reflist". However, I don't promise to abandon the straightforward giving of information about the cited source and to adopt instead the use of a form that I would first have to retrieve each time.

To my mind, "the moral precepts always bind" sounds like "there is no gradualness of the law", while "they become easier to practice" sounds like "there is a law of gradualness". I don't understand the distinction you make between "graduality" and "gradualness". I think of the two words as synonymous, but the first one as perhaps inferior English: the Wikipedia spell-checker objects to it.

To my mind, something like Wikipedia should not use "Pope John Paul the Great" until many decades after his death, when it has become clear that this is an established phrase. But if you insist on its use, I won't object further. Esoglou (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed retitle of this article

The more common term for this topic is the "law of gradualness". That is the term used in Familiaris Consortio, the Vademecum for Confessors, and Amoris Laetitia. I propose this article be re-titled, "Law of Gradualness". Are there any objections? --PluniaZ (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)