Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Catholic beliefs

Speaking as someone who is not a Catholic, I came to this article hoping to find clear information about Catholic beliefs, but found very little about that. I think this section needs to be added. Do Catholics believe that the bible is literal truth? Do they belive, for instance, that the earth was created in seven days?

My (perhaps ignorant) understanding is that the Catholic religion places a heavy emphasis on "sins" and forgiveness of "sins" - is that correct? If so, what are the things that are counted as "sins"? There are sections on "Liturgy", "Sacraments", "Doctrine", but they don't really tell me much about actual beliefs. Can somebody please write a simple no-nonsense guide to what a modern Catholic believes, with a particular emphasis on the practical and everyday? I want something along the lines of "Catholics believe that eating carrots on Wednesday is a sin" rather than "The centre of the Roman Catholic Church's life is the liturgical service of the Eucharist...".

Thanks JamesJohnson 30 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)

For a primer of Catholic belief, I would recommend "Handbook for Today's Catholic" from Redemptorist Pastoral Publications (Liguori). Your local parish might have a copy, or a similar text. Aside from that, the Catechism of the Catholic Church would probably help. -- Essjay · Talk June 30, 2005 10:22 (UTC)

That's fine, I could get those books and then add a section on Catholic beliefs to this article, but perhaps it would be better for a Catholic to do it? Or at least someone who knows about the subject - as I said, I don't. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" looks like it contains the information, but it is full of Catholic jargon. JamesJohnson 30 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)

My thinking was more along the line that someone looking for a primer on the Church should really go for a text designed to introduce an individual to the Church. An encyclopedia article can't be expected to outline all the beliefs of the RCC; it would be thousands of pages. (And how would we decide what was "basic" enough to include?)

If you are really serious about the Church, contact a local parish; they will have a Religious Education coordinator (either a priest or a layperson) who will be able to answer your questions. For that matter, I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have. I think the other regular contributors to this article would agree with me that a primer on the Church's beliefs is not what this article is meant to be, and if such was added, it would either devolve into a dispute, ending up on RfC, or be removed outright. Sometimes, we have to say "See someone who can offer more than an encyclopedia," and I think this is one of those times. -- Essjay · Talk June 30, 2005 11:04 (UTC)

Essjay, I am not interested in becoming a Catholic, and there will be other people who look up "Catholic" in wikipedia who are not interested in becoming Catholic but want to know what Catholics believe. Is it really that difficult to write a summary of Catholic beliefs? I don't agree that the subject is outside the scope of an encyclopidia entry. Why should it be? Beliefs are fundamental to religions.

You say that such an article would devolve into a dispute, but I thought that the Catholic Church was very strict in its "dogma" - in other words, surely there shouldn't be much dispute amongst Catholics about your beliefs as you're not supposed to question them?

First, not my beliefs. I'm Disciples of Christ, not Catholic; I just happen to have spent my life studying the Church. Second, some beliefs are non-negotiable, others are flexible, e.g.:

• Was Jesus the Son of God? Absolutely. (You don't get to say no and be Catholic)

• Was the world created in seven "days" as we know days? Not necessarily. (You get to decide for yourself.) A "day" to an ancient Hebrew might or might not be the same as it is to us, and for that matter, a "day" to God might or might not be the same as it is to us or the ancient Hebrews.

• What counts as a sin? Abortion is a sin. (The Church is adamant of this; you don't get to say no and be Catholic) Is it a sin to vote for a politician who thinks he would vote against criminalizing abortion if the issue comes up but isn't sure because it hasn't yet? Maybe. (Some say yes, some say no, and the Pope hasn't said anything definitive either way, so you can answer either way and still be Catholic)

My point is, there isn't a laundry list of sins: nobody has spelled out a list of every possible sinful action. By the same token, all of the Church's beliefs can't be codified, because they are constantly changing. What is demon possession today is a psychiatric illness tomorrow (epilepsy) ;what is a sin today is commerce tomorrow (Usury). The Catechism makes an attempt to spell out the Church's teaching on many of the core issues; but it can't cover them all, nor can we. Thomas Aquinas tried, and the result is 3020 pages in five volumes.

When converts are educated about the Church, they receive a cursory introduction to Church belief: it takes a year, and barely touches on the tip of the most important doctrine. I don't want to take up all of this talk page with this, so see my sandbox where I've outlined what I think would be the basics. I don't mean to come off as flippant, but I don't think you realize how much material is covered by the "basics" -- Essjay · Talk June 30, 2005 12:48 (UTC)

(Note: Talk pages are typically not edited, they are archived. If this page is getting too long (and it is rather long) the oldest inactive threads should be archived. Deleting discussions outright, however, is highly frowned upon. I'm returning this thread for that reason. -- Essjay · Talk July 3, 2005 06:35 (UTC))

No problem. Sorry, didn't know the rules! JamesJohnson 4 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)

oldest in existence?

The introduction contains the phrase "The Roman Catholic Church is also both the largest and the oldest continuously operating institution in existence." I am always suspicious of this kind of sweeping statement. Is it true? I think Jewish people might disagree with this? What about in Asia - I'm sure China or Japan might be able to claim some institutions that go back further. "Institution" is a very broad term. JamesJohnson 30 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia,

Institutions are organizations, or mechanisms of social structure, governing the behavior of two or more individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing human behavior.

I'm unaware of Japanese and Chinese cultural institutions, however, Judaism is a different matter. Judaism is a faith and culture, but due to the lack of constant organization within, it is not an institution. Reading Judaism, there is no mention of "institution". Nor does a search on Google of "institution of Judaism" yield an affirmative for the faith as such.

mac 30 June 2005

As the Wikipedia entry shows, the word "institution" is a very broad term. It can apply to any organised religion. Are you claiming that there is no pre-cristian religion that has survived to the present day? Searching on Google for "institution" along with things is just silly - just because things don't refer to themselves as institutions does not mean they are not (especially considering that "institution" is English, and yet the statement we are referring to is global in scope.)

With regards to my point about Jewish people disagreeing, I wasn't referring to Judaism specifically. What about the Samaritans, for example? The Smaritans have a religion that goes back unbroken 3000 years, and is still in existance. In order for the statement for the Roman Catholic Church to be true you either have to a) think the Samaritans don't exist or b) that their religion is not an institution. According to the accepted definition of institution, the Samaritan religion is one.

What about the Indian caste system? That is an institution, still exists today and pre-dates Christ by at least a thousand years. These are just two examples of institutions I have come up with after a little thought, I'm sure there are dozens more.

I am sure you are going to attack these two examples and say they are not institutions, but according to the dictionary definition of institution, they are. If by "institution" you are using a meaning other than the dictionary definition, then you need to make the statement about the Catholic Church more specific.

Please note, I am not attacking your religion. I just don't think inaccurate, sweeping statements have any place in an encyclopedia.

(By the way, I can find various web pages that refer to both the caste system and the Samaritans as institutions, although as I've mentioned I don't think searching Google is a very good way of demonstrating if something is an institution or not. But it shows that my examples pass your test.)

JamesJohnson 1 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

Perhaps an adjective should be added to institution, but I dont appreciate your condemning of Google, as this test is used numerous times in other discussions in Wikipedia. Also, its strange how you automatically assume I am Roman Catholic. Instead of brandishing the word "sweeping" over and over, try using a less colloquial word.

I like Google, it is just the way you were using it in this case I was criticising. So you're not Catholic - I was just being polite, not specifically to you but to anyone who reads this. Sweeping is not colloquial: sweeping adj. Indiscriminate; wholesale: "sweeping generalizations". But please, let's keep on topic. Any thoughts on how to make the statement under discussion more accurate?

Catholic, not Roman Catholic

I apologize for starting yet another subsection, but I wanted to start this fresh and new, and I'll be moving up the other section discussions here, shortly. The Eastern Catholic Churches are just as much a part of the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church is, and putting this article under Roman Catholic Church is HIGHLY inaccurate. There seems to be some confusion about this, so I wanted to point you to the actual Catholic Church stance on this, which clearly refutes many of these misconceptions, some of which people have (with honest intention, I have no doubt) stated on this page or in the article. ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM - Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite solemnly pomulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI - http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html . This is on the Vatican website, so there are other language versions there for those more comfortable with them. As I have said elsewhere calling the Catholic Church is much like calling the USSR "Russia". Yes, it's the biggest, and yes, many people 'know what you mean', but it is not correct, and it is, for lack of a better word, very unfair to Eastern Catholic persons. I urge people to look over this, and I ask how we can best correct this. Perhaps merging this and Eastern Rite into one article under Catholic Church is the best option, perhaps there is a better idea, but leaving it as is is not a good idea. Please discuss, this is not a minor issue. --John Kenneth Fisher 14:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The source you quote nowhere says Eastern Catholics are not Roman Catholics. In internal documents, the (Roman) Catholic Church normally refers to itself as the Catholic Church, using "Roman Catholic" in documents involving Christians who do not accept its claim to be the true Catholic Church. It is clear that, in its eyes, all its members, whether Eastern or Western (Latin), are equally Catholics, equally Roman Catholics, because all are united with the Roman Pontiff, a phrase synonymous with "Bishop of Rome". Lima 18:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

However, the Churches themselves disagree with you. I realize this is a common misconception. Still, for example, "Having said that we are "Catholics", we must now state that we are NOT Roman Catholics, but Catholics who are identified as being Eastern Catholics. " - St. Anne's Byzantine Catholic Church - San Luis Opisbo, CA|http://www.byzantines.net/st-anne/whorwe.htm , to pick just one --John Kenneth Fisher 19:30(ish), May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you: it is a common misconception, even among Catholics, both Eastern and Western, to think "Roman Catholic" means "Latin Catholic". However, this misconception is at variance with "the actual Catholic Church stance on this". In its agreement with the World Council of Churches, the (Roman) Catholic Church has stated that it considers that it should properly be described as the Catholic Church, but that it accepts the designation of Roman Catholic Church; and it is obvious that, in its relations with the WCC, the Catholic Church is not acting on behalf only of its Latin element. Lima 20:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you strongly on much of the above, and I plan to dial up my local Diocese and my local Eparchy on Mon and I'll get back to you on that (If you have specific citations or questions I should bring up if I am able to speak with someone, please leave them in my talk page and I'll be happy to do so). In the meantime, however, if they agree "it should properly be described as the Catholic Church" no matter the position on Roman Catholic, is that not also a point in favor of a name change for the article? --John Kenneth Fisher 20:35, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought, and one I'm sure won't solve the existing arguement, but what about making "Catholic Church" a disambiguation page linking to articles on the various denominations utilizing the term "catholic," and listing this article as "Catholic Church (Rome)" or something similar, to separate it from the "Roman" label, while still making it clear that it is the Catholic Church in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Maybe even "Catholic Church in Communion with the Roman Pontiff." Essjay 03:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I, personally, think of the Church in question as simply the Catholic Church, but I think the Wikipedia article should continue to be headed "Roman Catholic Church", to take account of the point of view of those whom I think of as non-Catholics, but who call themselves Catholics: Old Catholics, High-Church Anglicans etc. To avoid offending them, I would not, when speaking with them, call them non-Catholics. The term "Roman Catholic Church" is not only what these use in formal discourse but also one that, as seen in many inter-Church documents, the Catholic Church accepts, in spite of it not being the preferred description. Any one of these inter-Church documents would also serve as an example of official usage by the Catholic Church of "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the Catholic Church as a whole and not just to its Western component. (There would be much more reason to change the title of the Novus Ordo Missae article, but that inaccurate title has been defended on the grounds that it is the term most commonly used for the present form of the Roman rite of Mass. It is, of course, opponents of the 1970 revision who, though a minority, write most about it, to air their complaints, and they use this term of their own invention, which was never an official term and was objective only when, in the 1960s, it applied not to the revision but only to the successive preliminary drafts of the relatively small Ordo Missae section of the Roman Missal. But I see someone has just revised that article to reduce the status of alternative terms.) Lima 08:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to undermine these other Catholics you mention.... Hmmm.... Just throwing a compromise out here, based loosely on Essjay's. What if 1) Catholic or Catholicism was a disambig page about all the groups who call themselves catholic., and 2) Catholic Church was a merge of what is now at Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Rite. This merged article would have a note like the one currently at the very top of Holocaust, ensuring we do not overlook these other Catholics.

(The location of the disambig page is just off the top of my head. Looking at those, there's already some debate over merging etc. Catholic Church (disambiguation) is another possibility, but as I said, just throwing this out there. My hope is that overall this solves everyone's probs. To Lima it is accurate if unnecessary, to me it is accurate and necessary, Latin and Eastern Rite folks should have no real argument as long as the article merges them sensibly (which would be hammered out over time) and other Catholics would likely understand why the article defaults to the larger CC as long as the very top line clarifies that there are other Catholics, and where you can find out about them. Again, see the Holocaust entry, which acknowledges others before elaborating on the "but you very likely are looking up...." one. Thoughts?--John Kenneth Fisher 14:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get the point of merging this article with Eastern Rite alone. Why not also with Latin Rite and maybe other related articles, such as, for just one example, Particular Church? And the person who started Roman Catholic Communion (or whatever it is called now - I myself think his article should simply be eliminated) stated a long time ago his intention to merge that too. What a long and complicated article this would then become, requiring also many corrections!

I fear too that, in the unlikely event that the Wikipedia community accepted that the present article should be titled "Catholic Church", it would be a battleground between those who see communion with the Bishop of Rome as essential for the true Catholic Church and those who want their differing view to be inserted at length. It is largely the use of the term "Roman Catholic" (an official term, as we have seen) that keeps this article focussed on the Catholic Church as John Kenneth Fisher and I understand it, leaving Catholicism open to the others.

In short, leave well enough alone.

Lima 19:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Just so. There needs to be an article on the Christian denomination whose head is the Pope; that article should make it clear that the Latin rite is one of several. "Roman Catholic" may be imperfect, but it does that job best. ("Papist" strikes me as the etymologically best catch-all, but this word is considered pejorative, apparently for historical reasons that might be largely obsolete now. It might be worth reclaiming.)

One question, for (Roman) Catholics. It seems to me that from some of the descriptions of the several rites or churches, that a number of the perceived difficulties of "the Church" are in fact unique to the Latin Rite. Is there some kind of primacy or privilege held within the RCC that makes the Latin Rite dominant? Is there some sort of institutional barrier that prevents priests, bishops, or members from switching out of the Latin Rite to one of the others? Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: Most people know what "Roman Catholic Church" means. I don't think most people use it in 2005 in a derogatory fashion, simply as a term of identification. In the same way, terms like "Methodist" and "Mormon" were once derogatory (and not entirely accurate) epithets hurled at other folks...terms which were eventually largely embraced. Certainly "Catholicism" as amovement is bigger than the term "Roman Catholic Church" implies, but the reality is that people consider the "Roman Catholic Church" the denomination over which the Pope of Rome presides. My suggestion is to leave "as is", with a note somewhere on the page stating that most Catholics don't call themselves "Roman", and that that label is used predominantly by non-Catholics (additional note: Methodism and Mormonism are two other "main pages" for those religious groups...should we redirect those to "Wesleyans" and "Latter-Day Saints"?). KHM03 22:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've rearranged the introductory terms of the preview paragraph. People (or folks) can keep banging on about the title of this article, but to subordinate the term Catholic to the term Roman Catholic once the text gets going is to defy logic. Be good.--shtove 04:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Strange. I just entered "Islam" in the search tool and I didn't get redirected to a page entitled "Mohamedanism". In fact, the "Mohammedan" entry makes clear that "Mohammedan" is not what Muslims call themselves, and refers them to the "Islam" entry.

True; however, that is because 'Islam' is the commonly-accepted term, not because it is the one preferred by the group itself (though it is also relevant to a degree that 'Mohammedan' is considered an offensive term, whereas 'Roman Catholic' is merely a term which declines to affirm the organisation's claims about itself).

"Mohammedan" is offensive to Muslims precisely because it "declines to affirm the organisation's claims about itself", by implying that the religion comes from Muhammad rather than Allah and by seeming to redirect glory due to Allah to his messenger.

You seem to be conflating "making false claims about a group" and "declining to affirm a group's own claims about itself". The two are very different. TSP 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Conflating? You can't conflate one thing only. I did speak about "declining to affirm a group's own claims about itself", but I never mentioned "Making false claims about a group" in the context of Islam. Are you seriously proposing to judge the truth or falsity of Muhammad's claim that he heard a voice speaking in the night? That's not the point. My point was that the offense-value of "Mohammedan", to Muslims, arises from the fact that it fails to accord to their religion the name they give it themselves, ascribing to it instead a name meant to particularise and diminish their universalist central truth-claim. Which brings us back to the Catholic Church.

No, "Mohammedan" is offensive because it makes a claim which Muslims say is not true - that it worships Mohammed. "Roman Catholic Church" makes no such claim - it states that the church is a Church, which it does not dispute; that it is Catholic, which it does not dispute; and that it is based in Rome, which it does not dispute. It is not the church's preferred name, because the church's preferred name makes a claim that other Christian groups do dispute - that the church in question is the Catholic church; which it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to either affirm or deny. In any case, you are fighting a battle on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church that it does not fight itself - the Church is perfectly happy to be called "Roman Catholic", and usually is in ecumenical contexts (try googling for "Roman Catholic" within vatican.va). Given that this is Wikipedia, not the Catholic Encyclopedia, this would seem to be an ecumenical (as opposed to a denomination-specific) context. TSP 09:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's very generous of you to decline to be offended on behalf of Catholics when you append to the name of their church an adjective meant to qualify its claim to universality. But you are incorrect in stating that the term is inoffensive.

Actually it's the Roman Catholic Church which declines to be offended on behalf of itself when it uses the term "Roman Catholic" in official external communications; for example in the name of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission. TSP 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You would be right if you said it was "less offensive" than the comparable "Mohammedan", but mostly because Catholics are more affable about slights than some other groups which shall remain discreetly nameless at this point.

You are obviously using the term 'offensive' differently to me. For reference, I consider a term offensive if for some reason it specifically maligns that referred to, or is associated with maltreatment of that person or group. I don't consider a term offensive simply because it is not the term that person or body would in an ideal world have people use. But as I say, this is irrelevant, because in fact the Church in question does not consider this term offensive, and uses it itself in official communications. TSP 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The applicable Naming Convention reads: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." The group's own preferences are irrelevant; commonness of general use, and lack of conflict, are the important factors, in both of which 'Roman Catholic Church' is at least as good as 'Catholic Church'. To examine the consequences of the naming convention you suggest, consider the group referred to in the Two by Two article. They prefer to call themselves 'Christians'; but the 'Christians' article is not about them. Indeed, by your logic the Palmarian Catholic Church and similar should also have their page at 'Catholic Church'. TSP 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just as there are lots of (comparatively) tiny groups calling themselves the Catholic Church, there are plenty of people walking around who insist that they are the true Pope -- but the Wikipedia entry for "Pope" (no qualifiers) is about you-guessed-who, isn't it?

When someone says "I'm Catholic", how often do you ask "Palmerian or Anglican?" Does anybody, anywhere? To pretend that the term is "controversial" strikes me as petty and/or disingenuous. But I see that most visitors to the page make similar comments, so I'll count this as the end of my turn and depart, not wishing to add to your burden.

It is indeed uncontroversial in informal speech in most parts of the English-speaking world; but if you asked Christians in a theological sense "what comprises the catholic church?" only about half of them would say that it was the church described in this article.

"Only about half"? That's over a billion people. And the point, surely, is that the other billion is made up of a very large number of far, far smaller churches, most of them, like the Anglican Church, with numbers so small that they weigh in well below the 1% mark (and falling) when compared to the main claimant to the name "Catholic".

I don't believe it should be necessary for an encyclopedia to weigh up all claimants on a particular issue, and decide which is right before proceeding; whether on the basis of numbers or anything else. It should be possible to report impartially on all groups, regardless of size and plausibility, in a way that neither asserts that their claims are true, nor denies them; but simply reports that those claims are made. In this context it is irrelevant how big the various groups are; each should be reported on impartially; which means not awarding disputed titles to one group or to another, but simply reporting that the title is claimed. TSP 09:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic" is often used informally to refer to this church because it is the term the church itself uses, but that doesn't mean that its claim is undisputed. In a similar way, when someone says "I'm American" most people wouldn't ask "Canadian or Peruvian"; but nevertheless the "America" article does not redirect to "United States of America". TSP 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Catholics call their church the Catholic Church. Why is it that when I enter that term, I'm redirected to "Roman Catholic Church", a name chosen for it by its Reformation-era opponents?

The earliest known uses of the term 'Roman Catholic' are in the 17th century, when it was employed in legal documents as a non-controversial term acceptable both to those within and those outside the Church. The Church's Reformation-era opponents used terms such as "Romish" alone; "Roman Catholic" has always been a compromise term, granting neither the Church's own view that it is the holy catholic church, nor the opponents' view that it is not.

One major issue with the term 'Catholic Church' is that it is disputed. The claim that the church referred to by this article is the catholic church is a controversial claim, and not one which I think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to imply support for. At the moment "Catholic Church" and "Catholic church" both redirect to "Roman Catholic Church", but at various points both of them have alternatively redirected to "Catholic" which is a good overview of the various claims on the term. The Naming Convention I quoted above supports it redirecting here (on the principle of least astonishment); but I would hesitate to actually place any article at a title that is so widely disputed when another title, which is both uncontroversial and used about as commonly outside the organisation itself, is available. TSP 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone here Roman Catholic?  I am a Canadian living in PEI and my Church is a "Roman Catholic Church" and our Priests refer to the Church as "Roman Catholic"

Who would be in charge of moving this article to "Catholic Church" and having "Roman Catholic Church" redirect people to the correct page? What's stopping the correction?

Anyone can, using the move function. However, it would almost certainly be instantly reverted if done before achieving concensus on this page, or for reasons which are inconsistent with Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. TSP 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so first of all, the term "Roman Catholic" was devised during the Henrician Reformation distinguish Catholics in communion with Rome from Anglo-Catholics, who were often called simply "Catholics". It is not the term that the church considers ideal, but it is frequently used. Many parishes are incorporated as "Our Lady of X Roman Catholic Church" or "St. Y. Roman Catholic Church". The fact is that in wikipedia, we cannot use the term "Catholic Church" to be synonymous with "Roman Catholic Church" because we also have articles on the Old Catholic Church, Liberal Catholic Church, the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada and Independent Catholic Churches. Carolynparrishfan 18:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

misc

There's still a few sections that are redundant with Catholicism, because I couldn't decide how to split them. Also, see also, bibliography, and notes are straight out of Catholicism. But I think it's a first step. Snowspinner 14:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why can't I get the page history from before April 19th?Barbara Shack 12:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is an improvement on the previous uninteresting article. Still I'm a bit suspicious. Few took any notice of its uninteresting nature unitl I editted it in the section of the history I can't access. Now suddenly a lot of good material has been added but its a bit dry. It needs to be made more interesting.

More important take care. Some time in the future we may find all this informative material shunted away and something put in its place which is pleasant and shallow, -say a nice description of the Roman Catholic mass- designed to convert people to Roman Catholicism.

I am not sure that dry is a bad thing in an encyclopedia. Nor am I sure how a description of Mass is going to convert people, except possibly with the fact that it at least rarely takes over an hour. In any case, the old history is, I believe, all on Criticism of the Catholic Church, which is presently a redirect to Catholicism. But is actually the old RCC article in disguise. Don't ask why. I forget already. Snowspinner 14:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't really like the Catholic church, and consider myself an atheist, but this article is increasingly reading as a pro-birth-control, anti-religious diatribe. --Delirium 12:25, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

Come and join a new WikiProject: Saints. --Kpalion 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Second Vatican Council etc.

I deleted a couple of things:

Many of these of other churches describe themseleves as "Catholic" or "catholic", a few of them to the exclusion of the Roman Catholic Church.

This sentence, above, is not about the Catholic Church, but is about what other churches call themselves and what other churches think of the Catholic Church; therefore it is not relevant, at least not in the "Structure..." section, and probably not at all. (Trc | [msg] 09:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC))

however, since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church recognized that the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Church, the Protestant Churches, and all other Christian denominations are all legitimate parts of the "Church of Christ", despite not being in communion with them.

This is at odds with reality. There is no change in the sense of what is "legitimate"; that term is itself very vague. I replaced this section with a clear quote from an actual document touching upon the subject of communion among churches. Trc | [msg] 09:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

The latest amendment to the Historical Criticism section is an NPOV concerning the trial of Galileo:

Enlightenment philosophers perceived the Church's doctrines as superstitious and hindering the progress of civilization. Many thinkers and academics criticized it for opposing scientific advancement. The trial of Galileo Galilei being a famous, though still hotly-debated, example. Pope John Paul II publicly apologized for the Church's actions in the trial on October 31, 1992.

The original, and now amended, version cites the trial as an example, but the sense of the paragraph doesn't let us know just what it is an example of (of a doctrine, a superstition, a hindering, an opposition?). Isn't it better to sort out the sense of a piece and tidy up its syntax and grammar before chucking an NPOV grenade? I make no comment on the trial, the circumstances and consequences of which are, of course, "hotly disputed" by some of the many "hot disputants" on Wikipedia (some of whom may be blond, d'ye reckon?).--shtove 21:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Church is criticized by some for not announcing what are seen by detractors to be mistakes. Some claim that it has not taken sufficient responsibility for its alleged (but strongly denied) "complacency" in the Holocaust, "persecution" of Galileo Galilei, or for the - hotly debated - nature of the Inquisition.

The Church response is that these incidents have frequently been misconstrued or exaggerated, often for polemical reasons. Catholic apologists often note that in 2,000 years of Church history there may well have been some wrongs committed by Church members, but that these evils have too-often been overemphasized, at the expense of the good that has been done in terms of preserving learning, establishing education and health care, charity, scientific and technical advancement and providing a moral basis for Western law and society'.

I deleted this section and am going to replace it with something more neutral. Pope John Paul II publicly asked forgiveness for the trial to Galileo in 1992, and in 2000 and 2003 did the same for the Inquisition and for the persecutions against Jews and Muslims. 62.98.83.26 22:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church is also accused of being hostile to democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and of supporting absolute monarchy; and later, of supporting Fascism, Falangism, and similar authoritarian political movements, and of being too friendly with Nazism. Critics such as Rolf Hochhuth say that this stance caused the Church to fail to denounce the Holocaust.

May I suggest that, since most of this material is already dealt with in greater detail in the separate article Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships, that we link to that article? Right now, it is just a laundry list of accusations, and even though there is historical documentation to make those accusations substantive, that's not obvious from anything in this article.

It's also, uh, a little problematic that the one sentence that contains all the accusations is phrased in the present tense ("is also accused") when the misdeeds under discussion go back to the 1700s. I mean, is the Roman Catholic Church accused of supporting absolute monarchy today? That's the implication of the material in its current form. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "true" church

It is the true church founded by Christ.

I'm sorry, but this is just not an encyclopedic statement. The information that such continuity has been claimed for the church by some observers is relevant to the article, but it's already covered in the very first sentence of the article. As for whether it is the true church, well, there's only one party who can make a judgement that sweeping, and He has not created a Wikipedia account yet. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone should invite Him. I'm sure He could clear up a lot of problem articles. - Omegatron 05:44, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Surely He needs no invitation. Has he not come down and walked amongst the Wikipedians already? The NPOV system is certainly a miracle of confusion.--shtove 23:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Music

All of the independent countries and most of the dependent territories in the world now have "music of" articles (see list of cultural and regional genres of music) except for the Vatican City. I am wondering if there is anything that can be said about the music of the Vatican City? Are there choirs or other musical groups, religious or secular, of note? Should it redirect to Roman Catholic music, which doesn't exist, or Christian music, which does? Or maybe music of Italy? Anyone know? Tuf-Kat 06:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I would go with Music of The Holy See. With the exception of the treaty with Italy (and I think certain treaties such as the postal treaty), the Catholic Church's bilateral diplomatic relations and such are conducted as The Holy See. I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to call Vatican City a dependancy of the Holy See or if the Pope rules both entities (like the old Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy) Under "Holy See", the article could grab the relevant topics together and/or refer people for more info on Vatican Radio, Vatican press (which publishes church music), the Sistine Chapel Choir, etc.--Samuel J. Howard 10:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs. Catholic

Changing this article's bold title from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church is not NPOV. As much as I believe the churches in communion with each other and the Pope are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the rest of Christianity disputes this. Pmadrid 07:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not in arguement of anything, but I would just like to say that in my humble opinion, I believe that any time anybody of any faith or denomination hears "catholic" without clarification or context, they think of the Roman Catholic church. Nelson Ricardo 10:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to argue either, but you raise a good point. Let me clarify, though, what I was thinking, and I'll leave it at that. Besides the fact that this page is already titled "Roman Catholic Church," I was wary of their being in a neutral encyclopedia a statement without qualifiers that Roman Catholic Church = Catholic Church. While I agree that most people (at least most Americans) when they hear "catholic" they think "Roman Catholic," the problem is that "catholic" is a loaded term for several churches which claim to have apostolic ties.

Let's take as an example the page Eastern Orthodox Church. Changing its title to "Catholic Church" we would agree would be wrong. However, that is what the Eastern Orthodox believe and call their church, especially in places where Eastern Orthodoxy dominates. Changing its name to "Orthodox Church" wouldn't work either, even though most Americans associate "orthodox" with "Eastern Orthodox." Other churches claim orthodoxy, and there even is an Oriental Orthodox Communion seperate from Eastern Orthoxody. "Eastern Orthodox Church," then, is the best title for neutrality's sake, as it leaves out specific doctrinal issues while accurately identifying the church. "Roman Catholic Church" serves the same function.Pmadrid 06:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that is really the case. The Roman Catholic Church is only one of the (24?) churches that make up the "catholic church in union with Rome". It's like titling the article on Eastern Orthodoxy "Greek Orthodox".--Samuel J. Howard 07:26, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's another good point that I was going to get to eventually. Does the Roman Catholic Church = Latin Church + 23 other sui juris churches, or does Roman Catholic Church = Latin Church? I'm inclined to advocate the latter, and that is what this article used to advocate as well. Does anybody have any argument for the former? I would like to hear it. Pmadrid 12:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I agree with Samuel- the term "Roman Catholic Church" referes to the Western Latin Church and not to the churches that have different rites but are nonetheless in communion with Rome. As far as I can see, I'm afraid that there is no way to satisfactorily resolve this issue, excpet to say that I personally have no problem with calling the Orthodox Church simply the Orthodox Church, distinguishing bewteen Orthodox as a proper adjective and orthodox a common adjective meaning "in line with true or ancient teachings." I think that it is being oversensitive to require extra adjectives in the titles of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church when these titles are used in common discourse to neutrally refer to these organizations.

Also, there seems to be a page for the "Apostolic Christian Church." Is it accpetable for this smaller and, I suppose, less controversial church to have the audactiy to refer to itself by using one of the marks of the church without any qualifiers (accept for "Christian," which may even make its name more offensive to some)? Or should we "correct" its name by adding adjectives that do nothing more than save the feelings of others and make the name more complicated and perhaps less accurate?--Conwiktion 21:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see that the intro. section is on the move again. Some of the tortuousness of this seems clearly motivated by unhappiness with the article title, and the desire to 'explain it away'. Perhaps it's time to reconsider a move: after all, the LDS nearly managed to get their "The" included, maybe you could lose "Roman"? :) Does anyone have a definitive source on what the 'official' title of the church is stated to be? After all, WP policy is to use that unless there's some over-arching reason not to. Alai 23:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other Churches have needed to adopt a name or title when they came into being. The (Roman) Catholic Church has never had the same need to adopt a name or title. It uses many adjectives to describe itself, among them “one”, “holy’”, “catholic”, “apostolic” and, yes, to indicate the centrality for it of the see of Rome, “Roman” (employed by many popes from Gelasius I to the present day). But it needs to take a name only in its relations with others. In these relations, it uses whatever acceptable name the others give it. Thus, in the Common Declaration signed with the head of the Assyrian Church, it calls itself “the Catholic Church”, but in its relations with Anglicans, the form “Roman Catholic” appears, as in the name of the ARCIC theological commission. In all such relations, the authorities of the (Roman) Catholic Church act in the name of the whole Church, not of its Western part alone.

“Roman Catholic Church” and “Catholic Church” are thus names or titles that it has explicitly and officially accepted (rather than adopted). What it has never accepted is to apply the term “Roman Catholic” to only part of the Church. For what some Wiki contributors mean by “Roman Catholic Church” it uses the term “Latin Church”, as, for instance, in canon 1 of the Code of Canon Law.

Lima 01:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on that latter, which is partly why I'm inclined to say that simply "Catholic Church" would be somewat preferable, as it avoids one issue. (And raises another, but oh well...) And the situation of the Orthodox Church is essentially similar, as has been noted. But that's not the issue. For all intents and purposes, "Catholic Church" is the name/title it uses in self-reference. Not simply in communication with other churches, as one can see from a cursory examination of the Vatican's own web site, for example. (About 7000 hits for the term there, including "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which I doubt is especially intended for Episcopalian and the Presbyterian consumption.) Not simply as a descriptive adjective, otherwise why capitalise it so consistently? Certainly, it doesn't repudiate the term RCC, and as you say, uses it itself in some contexts (though far less often); and insofar as the terms have strict definitions, they denote the same thing. But if you asked the church this question, that's the answer you'd get, I'm pretty sure, which is what this in effect comes down to. Alai 04:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see that the intro. section is on the move again.

I realize there is some history here, but the article began with a long and complicated discussion of something that is not of primary interest to someone looking for an article on the Catholic Church. I reordered it to try to bring the order more into line with what would be of general interest. --Erauch 02:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you guys read Catholic?

It's pretty clear you havn't. ALOT of people {Ancient Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the Episcopal church, all the various orthadoxes...) call themselves Catholic. Please, remember NPOV. Sam [Spade] 23:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine, but keep in mind that this is not solely a matter of being NPOV- this is also a matter of accuracy. The Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with the Vatican are not properly referred to by the term "Roman Catholic Church"- only those who practice the Latin or Western Rite are. Take a look at this FAQ on Eastern Catholicism to see how the term is properly used: [1] (http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/eastfaq.html). The only truly accurate way to refer to the church headed by the Vatican is the Catholic Church, and if referring to this church with this title is NPOV, then there is no way that this article can be NPOV and use these terms as accurately as possible.

I was aware that "Catholic" also means universal and is a Mark of the Church- I have to admit that I was not aware that other sects of Christianity use the word "Catholic" in their names. It is for this reason alone that perhaps there is no really satisfactory way to resolve this issue, and perhaps it is truly best to incorrectly use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the entire church that is in communion with the Vatican. I guess in the end it just doesn't matter, so I probably won't press the point any further.

I still have to ask: "Apostolic" is another Mark of the Church. Is the title of this church NPOV: Apostolic Christian Church? ( One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church )--Conwiktion 02:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the title of the Church is (N)POV, but whether the article title is (N)POV. As I understand the policy, it's to use the "official" title of an organisation, etc, not to "objectively describe" the entity in question. Witness the bunfight at Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about Their Definite Article. And that's not even remotely factually accurate: there's not one LDS church, there are dozens. But the "official name" argument is, broadly speaking, carrying the day. Any possible ambiguity or confusion can be dealt with in the article body by appropriate links and discussion. (Currently we have an article that meekly complains about its own title, which is faintly bathetic.) Alai 03:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the official name is NOT the Roman Catholic Church - it is the Catholic Church, of which the RCC is merely the largest of (something like) 23 rites. It is by far the largest, yes, but it's calling the USSR "Russia". I think this needs to be corrected, as it IS NOT accurate as it stands. --John Kenneth Fisher 13:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The official name of the church that is in communion with the bishop of Rome is The Catholic Church; not the Roman Catholic Church. To preserve authenticity and factual accuracy, as well as not pandering to particular ideologies, any article here should reflect that. In ecumenical circles, there is no real concern of anyone misunderstanding the difference between the Catholic Church and the church catholic (the later being applicable to schismatics, to Anglicans, Orthodox, etc). In fact, any theology student who's taken an intro to ecclesiology or systematic theology will be able to tell you that the big "C" Catholic indicates union with Rome, and small "c" catholic indicates the catholicity of the creed. The use of the terms Roman Catholic and Catholic as synonomous is in no way a product of ecclesiology, but of American secular media who do not understand the distinction. We should take advantage of something like Wikipedia to rectify such widespread ignorance. In ecumenical dialogues, the only time the term Roman Catholic is used, is when the dialogue is specificly with the Latin-Rite particular church (properly called the Roman Catholic Church); such as the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, because the division occured from that particular church. Similarly, the dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East is a dialogue with the Chaldean Catholic Church; yet no one uses that as an argument for saying that Catholic and Chaldean Catholic are interchangable terms.

From a truly Catholic POV, the article would just be named Church. From the NPOV, I think that qualifying the subject of the article with the appelation "Roman" is a bad idea. Here are my lines of reasoning:

• The ecclesial communion which is the subject of the article is known most often simply as the "Catholic Church" in common parlance.
• With regard to the mark of catholicity, other ecclesial communions, notably the Orthodox and the Anglicans, do, in correspondance, refer to the subject of this article as "Catholic Church".
• The "Roman" qualifier simply is inaccurate. There are (and have been for several hundred years) non-Roman traditional churches within the ecclesial communion which is the subject of this article. The current title of Eastern Orthodox Church is equally silly in this regard; there are indeed Western churches which are a part of that communion.

I propose the following:

• Name the article Catholic Church.
• Put something like this at the top of the page:

The subject of this article, without prejudice to its catholicity, is the ecclesial communion which is visibly headed by the Bishop of Rome. Other ecclesial communions also describe themselves as catholic: see Catholic Church (disambiguation).

--Mm35173 18:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree with all your logic there. Certainly, informally, "Catholic" usually means "Roman Catholic"; but an encyclopedia isn't really an informal context.

I think you're wrong when you say that other communions, such as the Anglican Communion, refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church" - google for "Catholic" within cofe.anglican.org and you will find two kinds of hits - those using the term "Roman Catholic", which refer to the church this article is about; and those simply using "Catholic", which refer to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of which the Church of England considers itself a part. The same is true if you search within oca.org (the Orthodox Church of America). There are a few exceptions, but this is the rule; and when the church which this article refers to joins together with others, it usually does so under the title "Roman Catholic Church" - for example in the "Anglican-Roman Catholic Committee". This is because the church this article refers to accepts that is preferred name - "Catholic Church" - is not one that other Christians accept its claim to. Given that the Church itself is perfectly happy to use a different, disambiguated name in ecumenical contexts, I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't be.

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-Roman" churches. This article is about the church headed by the Bishop of Rome. What is non-Roman about certain particular churches within it?

For example, the Eparchy of Passaic in New Jersey is a particular church, under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, which is not a Roman Church. It is a Ruthenian Catholic Church, practicing the Byzantine rituals. The qualifier which precedes "Catholic" refers to specific tradition, not to top-level jurisdiction. Furthermore, should the Anglican Communion and the Catholics regain full, visible unity, the Anglicans would no doubt be Roman, as they already use a liturgy derived from the Roman Missal (as opposed to say, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostomos). It is fitting, then, that the joint commission be called the ARCIC. I think it is important to note that nowhere in the Vatican II decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, is the term "Roman Catholic" used. By the way, I cannot figure out why my signature further up in this page is rendering like that. --Mm35173 14:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think that's the way that the Church itself uses the term. I don't think that when Pope Paul VI signed the document "The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion" he meant to emphasise that he did not speak for any Byzantine Catholic Churches; nor do I think that the "Joint international commission for the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" means only to speak for the Latin Rite. That said, there are interesting differences; the Eparchy's own website seems to say that it does not consider itself part of the same body as that headed by the Pope, but merely in communion with that body. If that is the case, then this article needs to be split - into one page about the communion, and one about each individual church (as with Anglican Communion and its member churches). But if is not the case - which many people on here seem to have been arguing vehemently - then they are part of a church headed by the Bishop of Rome - a Roman church. TSP 14:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

On further research - the leaders in the The Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh are appointed by the Pope, so it clearly is part of the same church. I'm not sure what they mean when they say they are "America's only self-governing Church in union with Rome" - in what way are the self-governing that other American churches in union with Rome are not? TSP 15:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

- If they are not under the authority of the Pope, then I don't think that they are the same organisation that this article is about. They are churches in communion with it; but the Church of England and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland are in communion, but nontheless have separate Wikipedia articles.

- If they are under the authority of the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) then they are, in that sense, Roman. TSP 00:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Idea: Catholic News

I have a little idea of creating a page on Catholic News. The content of it could be a small news( that could be change on daily basis ) or big news/important news( that could be change on weekly/monthly basis ). I believe much of wikipedian have been through/taken theology class, or maybe even a priest, so I think maybe they could write and edit the articles on this page. I'm just a student, but I'll be willing to help where needed. Thank you!!! Just an idea...Roscoe x 18:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Such a page wouldn't really be appropriate for Wikipedia, which is not a news site. On the other hand news articles about the Church can certainly be summarized on Current events, and I suppose m:Wikinews, when it gets started, would welcome such articles too. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

O well, than maybe the page still could be used to write a reliable sources of Catholic news.Roscoe x 18:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but the section on Rites and Traditions strikes me as misleading. There are not multiple Rites with the Roman Catholic Church; there is only the Latin Rite. Other Rites are practiced by other churches within the Catholic Communion. It appears that Wikipedia is making the common mistake of applying the term "Roman Catholic Church" to the entire Catholic Communion. I will edit appropriately. Isomorphic 16:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or perhaps I am wrong. Either way, this is a very confusing subject because so few people know that there is any distinction between the Latin Church and the body of Churches under the Pope (whatever this body should properly be called.) Isomorphic 17:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Surely the Roman Catholic Church itself knows best how it is constituted. It has long considered that it is composed of different "rites" or autonomous Churches. The list in the Wikipedia article is identical with that in the annual Vatican publication Annuario Pontificio (page 1059 in the 2004 edition). The following pages of the same publication then list the in many cases quite numerous dioceses or eparchies that belong to each particular Eastern Church or rite. That is one sense in which the word "rite" has been and is used.

Isomorphic prefers to understand the word "rite" only as something that is "practised". But his use of the phrase "the Latin Rite" in this sense is self-contradictory. The Latin Church (or Latin Rite or Western Church or ...) practised and practises different rites, none of which can be called the Latin rite. The Dominicans who practised the Dominican rite were still Latin Catholics. They did not practise the Roman rite, but they were still Roman Catholics. The same holds for the Archbishop of Milan, who practises the Ambrosian rite, not the Roman.

Lima 18:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Isomorphic at a certain level. To me the Roman Catholic Church refers specifically to the aggregation of those particular churches that are suffragan to the Roman Patriarch and are not Eastern Churches. A Ruthenian or Ukranian Catholic Church which celebrates eastern liturgies, for example, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, is not properly part of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, the Church does not use the appelation Roman to describe itself at the worldwide level very often in contemporary usage; the term "Catholic" is much preferred. "Roman Catholic" used to describe all churches in communion with the Pope in Rome is not NPOV. A better title for the article might be "Catholic Church", with an immediate link to a disambiguation page listing other ecclesial communities which lay claim to the appelation Catholic, with a consise paragraph summarizing the POV issues surrounding the term near the top of the article. --Mm35173 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

CARM

I removed the link to CARM because Matt Slick, and his articles, are anti-Catholic, instead of simply being against Catholicism. This assessment comes from debating him on his own board and from his articles. Notably, in his article on Mary, he cites the book "Roman Catholicism" by Loraine Boettner, which may be charitably compared to a book length version of a Jack Chick tract. I'm not opposed to links that are critical of Catholicism (though I would suggest that any such link be accompanied by a link to a Catholic apologetics site), but am opposed to links to sites that are anti-Catholic. --Kadett 00:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An anon posted a book by Paul L. Williams in the additional reading section. I've removed it because I literally cannot find anything about that book online. Doesn't show up on Amazon at all and ISBN lookups say that the ISBN number is invalid. I don't doubt that the book was published, but I don't think that it should be referenced when there's no information available about it. --Kadett 05:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

criticism

I don't understand the reason to include the section "criticism" in the article about Roman Catholic Church: every human group, faith, party...is exposed to critics by other groups that do not share the same values; the truth is that campaigns against Catholic Church have always hidden purposes...

The reason to include that information is that it is true and hardly missable information: plenty of criticism has been levelled at the Roman Catholic Church, and it's not Wikipedia's place to decide "that criticism is incorrect and therefore no reference to it should be made." Wikipedia is not stating that the criticism is correct or incorrect, just that it is. I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to explain why information on criticism of the Roman Catholic Church should be excluded from the article on the Roman Catholic Church. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only notable criticisms should be included. And, when it includes them, Wikipedia puts them in the context of being notable. If they are only notable as calumnys they must be put as calumnys, otherwise they are not notable.--Samuel J. Howard 21:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, we don't include unnotable criticisms, and if there is evidence that a criticism is misguided, we include that evidence as well. But we don't simply say "Anyone who criticizes the Roman Catholic Church must have ulterior motives so let's remove any reference to criticism altogether." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My goal is not to exclude critics on Catholic Church, but to point out that in no other articles about religions, groups...i could find a section labelled "criticism": isn't it strange? And what would happen if i write something against, say, homosexuality, hebraism or buddhism (not that i am against them, just examples)? Maybe i am too suspicious but i think it would not last for long...

The organization of each article may differ, because each article develops differently. Not every article may be divided up into sections, one of which is labelled "criticism". But if you couldn't find another article on any other religion or group that makes reference to criticisms that group has received, then you weren't looking. Period.

As for "what would happen if i write something against [other group?]" -- your question has an answer but I think you're showing that you don't understand yet the answers you've already been given. It depends heavily on what your "something" is. Is it a notable criticism, where putting that information in the article reflects the truth that, yes, that criticism has been made in the real world in a significant way? Then it's probably going to stay in (although it may get moved if you put it in the wrong place, just as many criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church have been moved to this article from Catholicism -- generally, an actual organization of people who make decisions are going to attract more criticism than a religion, which can make no decisions on its own.) But if you're going to invent a criticism just to put it in to test whether it will be taken out -- it probably will be taken out, not because your test proved a bias, but because your contribution was not a good-faith effort to improve the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, yes you are correct in noting the distinction between criticism of the faith and the institution. However, there is no criticism section for the mormon church article. Instead, it has a seperate article titled "opposition to mormonism." Much of this article contains legitimate criticism of the mormon church (why isn't a very general overview of this a section in the mormon church article)? Why is criticism of the mormon church labelled as opposition (implying those who criticize it are incapable of being neutral)? Why does mormonism get special treatment? You can argue as much as you want to the contrary but the criticism section for the catholic church article is very conspicuous. The CC is being singled out. -ananymous

using the "flat-earth" theory, geocentrism and the famous trial of Galileo Galilei. I thought that was a three-part list, not an equation of the first two (though I'm not sure of the church's historical position on the first, so I shan't revert it back immediately). Alai 06:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though a medieval bishop got into trouble for positing people with no relation to Christon the supposedly unreachable other side of Earth, I would be highly surprised if Church authorities ever insisted on a flat-Earth theory. Until the Renaissance, the working paradigm for astronomers was the one codified by Ptolemy in the second century A.D.: a series of concentric spheres, with Earth as the central one. And, contrary to what the ignorant keep repeating, the objections raised against Columbus's plan to reach India (Asia) by sailing west instead of east, were based not on a supposed danger of falling off the edge of a flat Earth, but on the view that Asia was much further west than indicated in the calculations Columbus presented for Earth's circumference. The expert committees were in fact right. He was wrong, but he died still convinced he had proved them wrong. Lima 23:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just added what I hope is a neutral enough paragraph mentioning female ordination and celibacy as being issues currently being debated between reformers and traditionalists. Perhaps a new section called "Current Issues" should be created? --Netsnipe 15:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the Roman catholic Church article is the only major religion article I have found on this site to have a "Criticisms" section? It just seems to be an open forum for people to post attacks on the church, and is not duplicated with other religions - even Islam, which certainly attracts a lot of criticisms. Either have a criticism section for all aiths or none.

I'm starting to think we need a FAQ, just for this talk page, just to answer questions like "Why is the Roman Catholic Church the only major religion article to have a Criticisms section?" (Answer: because the religion is Catholicism. Roman Catholic Church is the institution, and flesh-and-blood institutions, on the whole, are going to gather a lot more criticisms than abstract religions.) If people can't be bothered to read the talk page before posting the same whine -- twice... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Bible

Funny - I came to this article looking for information about which version of the english bible the Catholic church uses, and the word bible does not even appear in this article...

The American Catholic Church uses the New American Bible in the lectionary, while Canada uses the RSV-CE if I remember correctly. I don't know about other English speaking nations. No one is beholden to these versions however (they are merely the ones used in the Mass and other liturgical events), I prefer the Jerusalem Bible myself. --Kadett 23:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An Australian Priest I knew for a bit told me that they use the Jerusalem Bible down under. I personally prefer the New American Bible with the Revised New Testament. Catholic translations of the bible that I know of include the Doulay-Rheims Bible(1582), a revision of that bible by Challoner (1749 and 1752), a further revision by the Bishop's Committe for the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD), the Jerusalem Bible (1966, revised 1985), the New Confraternity Bible (1968), the New American Bible (1970, NT revised 1986), the Common Bible (1973), and the New Revised Standard Version (1990, approved as Catholic 1991). However, since the original comment seemed not directed at ascertaining which translation Catholics use, I'll note that the word "Scripture" is commonly used in more formal writings and is found in the article.--Thesquire 06:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-Apostolic Churches

what about the RCC'S relationship with non-apostolic Christian churches. No mention is mead of the Chartists or the primitive churches, et al. --Numerousfalx 00:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the Church

I'd like the raise the issue of the reference "the Church". I suggest that this is not beyond NPOV question, as it's not really a useful abbreviation of the church's "official name" -- if it even has one, see above -- and thus doesn't really have the status of a proper noun. ('Catholic Church' is, to my mind, and so's find.) When used as an unqualified reference, I'd like to propose that it not be capitalised. Alai 01:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is not beyond NPOV question, but I submit that there is not really much to be concerned about. When discussing any church (note lowercase) whose official or commonly used name (even if some dispute exists whether that should be its name) includes the capitalized noun "Church" it is common practice to use "Church" thereafter in the discussion as a referent, save of course when two such entities are being discussed together. Check out Church of Scientology; not even those editors who seem most disgusted at the idea that the CoS could be considered as a legitimate "church" have ever found any problem with it being referred to as "the Church".

So I have to say that your suggestion fails to follow current practice, to a degree where I would view it as a POV problem if we did de-capitalize all such references. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the first Church article I've raised this question in, so you're to that extent at least correct about common practice. That does not mean that common practice is correct practice, though. If it's not NPOV, it should be changed, and yes, it should be changed consistently everywhere, if that's what you mean by a "POV problem" with such a change. The LDS project has just voted to wean itself off this style of usage, for example. I'm not sure the CoS example is especially helpful here; some that question its status as a church might be less happy with "the church" (a descriptive term) than with "the Church" (ambiguously either an abbreviated title, or an emphatic version of the description). Of course, we could always declare this to be a manual of style issue... Alai 06:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It does seem like something that would or should be covered in the manual of style, yes. The POV problem I was actually thinking of was that this is common practice in all print so far as I'm aware of, not just on Wikipedia, so if we chose to run counter to that style, it could be construed as some sort of statement. But you're also correct that there is a secondary problem with referring to a group with a generic noun rather than an abbreviation of their name; I think the CoS example actually is especially helpful here, since it points up that referring to a (purportedly) religious organization as a church endorses the POV that they are a church, whereas referring to them by an abbreviation of their proper name merely endorses that they use that name and it has become a referent for them. In the case of the RCC of course there is still controversy over that but one that revolves around the "The", the "Roman", and the "Catholic", not the "Church". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The CoS example is certainly interesting, but my point was essentially as you just said: the 'POV implications' could be argued to run the other way. But either way, it complicates matters, yes. I'll have to further investigate as regards general practice. (I may ask the Guardian, arch-non-capitalisers that they are -- though more to the point, they have a very helpful Style Guide, and staff thereon.) Alai 19:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mysterion?"

I've deleted, for now, the recent anonymous addition to the Sacraments section: <Originally, the Church used the term "mysterion" to signify these seven sacraments, but in a time of numerous cults this ancient term suggested an elite, a secretiveness, even a Gnosticism which was not the intention. Borrowing from the Roman army, the Church found a ritual and term which would convey that sacraments (mysterion) were for ALL. Obviously, they borrowed "sacramentum" which was known to all Roman soldiers as the "oath sworn to Caesar." The Church simply altered her seven rituals (mysterion) to be the rituals where one affirmed loyalty to Christ.> - No argument that the Greek term mysterion (mystery) is roughly equivalent to the Latin term sacramentum, but please provide more details and maybe some supporting evidence of the above; references, etc.? -- Harris7 19:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs Catholic

I think it's at best marginal whether this article should be "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church". I certainly don't think we should purge the article of either, since both are valid references, the only question is which the the more common usage (and/or "official"). Alai 03:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic" is correct for what the article states. Roman Catholic is not. I have no objection to most of the article content, but this is an inaccurate name, propagating an inaccuracy. I find this very important. --John Kenneth Fisher 13:51, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Catholic is the official and accurate usage for the entire church. Roman Catholic officially refers just to the Latin Rite particular church. That much is clear from every document of Vatican II regarding the church and is clear in all ecclesiological writing since then as well.

Could you provide a source for some of these documents in which it is clear that "Roman Catholic" refers only to the Latin Rite church? Bodies such as the "Joint Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches"; the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" (whose members on the Roman Catholic side, incidentally, included members from Greece, Israel, Bosnia-Herzogovina and Lebanon); and statements such as "The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion" (whose author on the Catholic side was Pope Paul VI, who was surely qualified to speak for the entire Church, not just the Latin Rite), and the "Common Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athengoras I" (in which the term Roman Catholic is used throughout the English translation), all mentioned or published on vatican.va, seem to suggest otherwise. TSP 10:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. If you do have such documents, we certainly need to know about them; because your assertion above directly contradicts the current content of the article: (the Catholic Church) has never adopted the usage of those who apply the term "Roman Catholic" to the Latin-Rite or Western Church alone, to the exclusion of the Eastern Churches that also are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. When it employs the term "Roman Catholic Church", which it rarely does except in its relations with other Churches, it means the whole Church "governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him", wherever they live and whether they are of Eastern or Western tradition, the whole Church that has as its central point of reference Rome, whose Bishop the Church sees as the successor of Saint Peter. The only other meaning it would give to "Roman Catholic" is "a Catholic who lives in Rome", as a Catholic who lives in Warsaw could be called a Warsaw Catholic. TSP 15:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism" section getting a bit out of hand

It's valid to mention controversies, but the article is turning into a bit of a soapbox for the disaffected. This is the latest addition:

File:Homosexuality Spanish Inquisition.jpg

Holy Roman Catholic Church officials presiding over the torture of a man suspected to be homosexual before his subsequent execution during the Spanish Inquisition. Circa 1800 AD. According to Herrera Puga the authorities:
"placed no limits on the means; in this way they used the rack, the lash, fire, etc. In some cases... they applied padlocked irons to the flesh which even led to the amputation of a hand..."

I disagree. It provides a relevant illustration of some of the horrible things that have been done under the Church. This image is part of Roman Catholic history. Even the Church itself has apologized for these crimes and seeks reconciliation with the groups it once persecuted. Please elaborate on how it constitutes a ?soapbox?? Apollomelos 23:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since it has more to do with the Spanish Inquisition than with the general subject of the Roman Catholic Church? I mean, when you go to France do you expect vivid descriptions and illustrations of executions by the guillotine? Even in the "Criticisms of France" section? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - the question is one of scope. The addition perhaps deserves a sentence in this article, but most of it should be in Spanish Inquisition. --12.76.48.94 05:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the date of 1800 seems much too late and inconsistent with the style of the engraving. --12.76.48.94 05:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I can see your points. And thanks for questioning the date. It was incorrect. The real year is 1700 AD. Apollomelos 11:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have changed the caption undert this picture on the Spanish Inquisition page. I have explained why on that article's talk page. In summary, this picture is on other web sites as simply "The Spanish Inquisition." Where is your proof that this was a man suspected of being homosexual? Also, the Spanish Inquisition after 1509 had no jurisdiction over homosexual activity - that was primarily a state matter. Only in Aragon, and only after 1524, did the inquisition preside over these cases. Also, the inquisition, when it did preside over these cases, (in Aragon), was infinitely more lenient than the state, which was severe and merciless. And finally, this is a more fanciful depiction, rather than a true representation of the 3 types of torture used by the inquisition, which rarely used torture, and when it did, it was far more merciful than the civil courts were. Rather than promote the "Myth" or "Black Legend" of the Inquisition, I think we should try to understand what really went on, and exactly what the "Church apologized for." The Church did not apologize for the wildly exaggerated claims, but for what really happened.Polycarp7 18:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I have responded. I am sorry to say the writings of the age clearly depict the Inquisition murdering "sodomites" to state otherwise is an equation of Holocaust denial. Apollomelos 04:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you source that please, with a scholarly work? You're making a rather large allegation after all. --Kadett 04:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"largest and the oldest"

My reversion was done with care. What does the claim that the RCC is "both the largest and the oldest continuously operating institution in existence" mean? The claim that it's the oldest -- that has a meaning. If no other continuously operating institution in existence is older, then it's the oldest. It can only be the largest, however, if no other institution of any kind is larger -- if it is the largest institution in the whole of the world, including larger than all governments. Otherwise, what's the basis for comparison? Which institutions are being discounted in the comparison and on what basis? If it's only being compared to continuously operating institutions that are as old as it is, we're back to pointlessness because there aren't any. If it's not, then again, which institutions is it being compared to? Without the standard for comparison the comparison is meaningless, hence its removal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, it's bigger than any government. it's the largest continuous institution ever, of any kind.

clearly entire countries do not count as institutions, or it wouldn't be the oldest continuous institution ever.

So the basis of the comparison is "whatever it needs to be to make the RCC the largest and the oldest"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholics and The United Church

Can someone please state the big differences between the two religions; United - (Methodist) & Roman Catholic.

Is it necessary for one to convert to the other for marriage ?

The differences are many; but it is not necessary to convert. From the Catholic POV, the Catholic partner has to promise to make every effort to raise any children as catholic that does not cause undue difficulty to the marriage; no promises are expected of the methodist.

changes by 137.142.183.62

I reverted these edits by 137.142.183.62, for the following reasons:

A new section called "The Roman Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic". This has some potentially useful material, explaining why the RCC describes itself by those adjectives. However, it's written only from the POV of a believer. If someone wants to restore it and NPOV it to clarify "this is what Roman Catholics believe, not something Wikipedia is claiming" I'd be okay with it.

Revising the Criticisms section to remove information and accidentally create redundancy. The criticism that the Church has faced for opposing the use of condoms even in AIDS-stricken countries is a real criticism, and not the same thing as the criticism it takes for opposing birth control in general -- which was already mentioned earlier in the same sentence.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New material

Greetings all. I added some new items to the article that might raise eyebrows. I wanted to record the cahnges here. 1)Opened up a new section on religious orders. The history and organization of these orders, I feel, is an important part of the church 2) Added a crucifix picture as an "eye catcher" at the start of the article. Hopefully that wont be reverted within the first five minutes! Most of the better articles have opening photos and I felt the cruxifx can rightly so be called one of the main symbols of the church. Now that Ive made these changes, I invite the experts to clean them up and expand them. Thanks! -Husnock 02:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there really 1 billion Catholics?

The Vatican claims 1 billion Catholics in it's official yearbook but I believe that hundreds of millions of them might not be Catholics at all and are simply claimed by the Church because they were baptized. I'm a baptised atheist, as are most of my friends and much of my family.

Has anyone got good figures on what percentage of those claimed as Catholics actually believe in Catholicism? I'm trying to find a mismatch between the Church's figures and census figures, even for one single country. Does anyone have a breakdown of that 1 billion across every country?

• An astounding number of people don't go to the effort to renounce the religion of their parents (even within their own thoughts), and when asked will readily claim adherance to something they don't really believe. I'm sure the Vatican is counting census data from countries where millions have been baptised Catholic, claim they are Catholic, but have never set foot inside a Catholic Church, or only passingly believe in the catechism. (Recent claims in the media that 65% of American Catholics believe in contraception, homosexual rights, and ordination of women back up this contention.) Unfortunately, to the rest of the world, they're as Catholic as I am until they themselves say otherwise. Sorry, I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence for this belief atm. Opusaug 23:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every year each diocese actually does a head count of people physically sitting in their pews, which generates this 1 billion number. In terms of baptised Catholics, the number would be larger. --Gerald Farinas 01:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge Notices Should be Removed

I was very surprised to see merge notices added to this article, in particular without any discussion or input on the talk page. The church and catholic articles are separate articles and should remain so. Merging three very large articles will cause length and content problems. Unlike the person who placed the merge notices, I will allow others to comment before removing them. -Husnock 02:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, this article should not be merged with with Catholic or Catholicism. To do so will cause confusion. There needs to be an article about the church headed by the Pope. Catholicism is not that article. This one is. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vehemently oppose such a move. The Roman Catholic Church references an organizational entity, a polity with a governing body. Catholicism references a broad view of relative subjects pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church. The two shouldn't be combined because they are two separate ideas. --Gerald Farinas 04:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am glad cooler heads previaled here. The user who placed those merge tags did so without discussing why or gathering opinions. Given the scope of these articles, a discussion was clearly warranting before embarking on such a major project as merging three lengthy religion articles. Ive removed the merge notices from the other two articles to match the actions which were taken here. -Husnock 04:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They've already been removed, but if it's questioned whether consensus supports that removal, let me speak up and say there's no sense in the proposal to merge. They are different subjects and each is already so complex it pushes the article to nearly uncomfortable size. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cafeteria Catholics

While the information about the terms "cafeteria Catholics" and "grocery store Catholics" surely belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that that place is a) in the "Criticisms" section or b) in Roman Catholic Church at all. It is, after all, not a criticism of the Roman Catholic Church -- it's a criticism of those who are perceived as not enough a part of the Roman Catholic Church. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Cafeteria Catholics", by my understanding, are people from RC backgrounds, and baptized into the RCC, who are unable to give full assent to all of the RCC's doctrines; usually on marriage or sexual issues. The assumption behind the phrase seems to be that the RCC has the right to proclaim regulations of these matters, and has chosen correctly in doing so. The implied accusation seems to be that these Catholics who refuse assent to them do so for selfish and unworthy reasons. It probably does belong in the "criticisms" section, but the relationship between these folks' religious practice and criticism of the RCC should perhaps be clarified. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholic gay marraige ceremony from centuries ago?

I think I remember reading in the newspapers in the mid-90s around Hartford, CT, USA about a priest that had dug up some old ceremony that used to be used to essentially marry two people of the same sex, begun using it to marry gay men, and been promptly excommunicated for it. I wonder if that ceremony, andor its practice at some earlier point in time, could be tracked down with enough certainty to be mentionable in this article. Seems like if it were, it would be relevant and worthy of note somehow in the article. -Ozzyslovechild 15:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• see John Boswell regarding the adelphopoiia liturgy. - Zotz 08:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Since, by definition, no such ceremony would have ever been valid, it wouldn't have been "Catholic". So no, it wouldn't be relevant at all, even if someone tried to promote it years ago. Opusaug 21:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Do you mean that if such a ceremony had been a dogmatic component of Catholicism at some point in the past but had since been removed from use, then it's existence in the past would not be relevant to a Wikipedia article about Catholicism? Or were you more heading towards a "it's very much not allowed now so therefore it never happened" kinda thing? -:)Ozzyslovechild 21:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD and cleanup help needed

Hi, I'm posting this request here because there doesn't seem to be a WikiProject for the Catholic Church. Apologies for the slightly eccentric nature of the request.

Someone has listed Ernesto Corripio Ahumada for deletion. Although too old to be eligible for the College of Cardinals, he's a former Primate of Mexico and certainly encyclopedic, though the article when nominated was a single defamatory sentence and I'm not really surprised it got itself listed while it was in that form. He's an old Vatican insider, and probably significant to the early reign of the last Pope.

I've written a basic stub, but I could still use some help because there are still a number of votes to delete this, and as it stands the article may well get deleted (recreation can be done but is problematic and is best avoided). Please visit the article (link above). Help with improving this article would be welcome. Votes to keep, if you please, would also be welcome, especially from regular editors.

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ernesto Corripio Ahumada

Thanks.

(also posted on the Pope Benedict XVI article talk page and nowhere else). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist v. Traditional

I changed the text from "Traditional Catholic" back to "Traditionalist Catholic" as this term is reflected both in the Wikipedia article Traditionalist Catholic and in other reputible work as the most accurate term for this group. While I agree that "Traditional Catholic" may more accurately describe some individuals identified in the group "Traditionalist Catholic," it seems the most accurate, and NPOV, term is "Traditionalist," not "Traditional." If others have evidence either way, please post it here. Essjay 13:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Can someone take a look at this paragraph under 'criticisms' for POV? --InShaneee 03:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• I rewrote most of this paragraph, and added text from the declaration NOSTRA AETATE of the Second Vatican Council that specifically addresses the proper nature of Judeo-Catholic relations. I'd appreciate comments from others. Essjay 07:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks better, but I think the problem still remains that it seems to be defending the church more than addressing the actual criticism. --InShaneee 19:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused as to exactly what you want the paragraph to say. Could you outline the criticism, so I can respond to it specifically? Essjay 02:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Incorruptibles

I was looking for an article on the Wikipedia about the incorruptibles and was unable to find anything. I'm hoping that someone could add a page on this. I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to make such a request - I'm kinda new to the Wikipedia.

As far as I know, the Incorruptibles are Catholic Saints buried within the Vatican's crypts, and they're corpses which have not decayed even though abnormal efforts have not been made to preserve the bodies.

"Criticisms"

We have a section for discussing the criticisms that have been made about the Roman Catholic Church. Someone's seen fit to go through and litter it with red herrings in a fashion I'm more used to seeing on the articles about cults. "The Church has been accused of having supported dictatorships but hey, look, someone has made an unspecified claim about the Church deserving credit for the Magna Carta!" "The Church has come under fire for its stance against using condoms even to prevent the spread of AIDS but lots and lots of people think the Church is right on the money and that it should be letting a deadly disease rage as long as most of its victims are getting it because they went against the Church's teaching!" Where such responses are a direct answer to the criticism, they may belong in this section; where they are attempts to say "well, maybe it's the critics who are wrong!" or "but look at all the good things the Church did in the same field!" they do not belong, and I will be removing them if no one else does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I already had this page on my to-do list for a once-over; I volunteer to make a special note to go through the criticisms sections ASAP. I already made a major re-write to the specific criticism re: Anti-Semitism for POV (see request above) and I'll be happy to do the same with the other criticism. I think you're absolutely right, that some of the inclusions are pseudo-apologetic. I'll give it a good going over. Essjay 13:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I revised the section. Brutal criticism, anyone? -- Essjay · Talk 04:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing brutal, I hope, in these three observations:

1. The Anti-Semitism section is altogether out of proportion. Shouldn't this criticism be treated like all the others, which are simply mentioned with a link to an article on the question? I haven't checked, but surely there is an article on Anti-Semitism, where the role of the past anti-Judaism (strictly speaking, it was not anti-Semitism: the hostility was not on grounds of race) and present attitude of the Catholic Church (indeed of Christian Churches in general) can be dealt with at whatever length is thought suitable.

2. In the Traditionalist Catholicism section, "reformed teaching and practice" (even with a lower-case initial for "reformed") has non-NPOV overtones. "Efforts at" only makes it worse. Better return to: "Traditionalist Catholics tend to see the Church's recent teaching and practice, in particular since the Second Vatican Council, as having betrayed core values of Catholicism."

3. The article Antipope does not in fact say it gives a "full list" of those who in this century and the last have claimed to be the Pope. It would be extremely difficult not to overlook some lesser-known claimants in various countries - even excluding certified psychiatric cases. "List", rather than "full list", is surely better, especially since the list is said to be "constantly changing".

Lima 16:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A couple of things in response:

1. I agree that the anti-Semitism section is a bit long; there was a request (see above) for a review of the section, and I made my best attempt to make some sense out of it. Perhaps I took an apologetic stance (although I am by no means an apologetic) with it; maybe it would be better for someone who holds the view that the Church is anti-Semitic should write the criticism.

1. With regard to the Traditionalist Catholic section, I'm going to defer. I think, like anti-Semitism, that it should be written by someone who holds the veiw.

1. "Full list" was the existing text; I had no reason to doubt it, and so I didn't. If the text is inaccurate, make the change.

In short, I've done what I can, and I invite those who are critical of the Church in any of the particular areas to rewrite the criticism to reflect a more accurate view of thier specific view. -- Essjay · Talk 08:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

"I invite those who are critical of the Church in any of the particular areas to rewrite the criticism to reflect a more accurate view of their specific view." Do you really think it a good idea to invite people to discourse within this article on their personal criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, thus returning this section to the enormous length it had before it was simplified by referring readers to other articles for details of the criticisms mentioned? Many, maybe most, of the criticisms now simply listed here were once elaborated on in whole paragraphs or much more, sometimes badly written by people like those who now limit themselves to a little vandalism. Is it really necessary, for instance, to have an elaboration of the views of Traditionalist Catholics here as well as in Traditional Catholicism? And to have within this article whole sections also on each of the other criticisms, both historical and contemporary?

When someone like you generously undertakes a general revision of an article or section of an article, I think it best to leave that area to him for some time, though of course not forever. I merely present to that person my suggestions, in the hope that he will examine them seriously and, if he thinks them justified, will make the necessary changes. For now, I am leaving it to you to judge whether the list of twentieth- and twenty-first-century "antipopes" should continue to be described as a full list, especially since its author makes no such claim.

In short, I am confident that you can still do more.

Lima 13:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, first, this is a wiki, and we do advocate being bold, so I have a strong feeling that the criticisms will be rewritten whether I invite a re-write or not. However, what I was encouraging was for someone who could better articluate the position (i.e., someone who actually holds the position) to make relevant changes if I had glossed over the truth. While I've tried to be NPOV, I must admit that I'm not always sure whether I've suceeded. I certianly don't want the article to descend "What's wrong with the Church? I'll tell you what's wrong with it!", but I believe it could benefit from input from the Church's critics. If my summary of the criticism isn't correct, I welcome a revised summary; our goal must be, and is, accuracy. Further, it's not NPOV if it doesn't accurately represent the criticism. In short, I'm looking for peer-review of my revisions, not inviting a soapbox.

If there is an article (such as Traditional Catholicism) that deals with a given criticism, I think a general overview here is appropriate, with a header link to the respective article.

I for one don't want my contributions left alone, particularly if they are incorrect. The issue of the antipope list is a factual one, and truthfully, I doubt we could ever have a "full list," since there's bound to be some schitzo out there who isn't on the list but is claiming to be the pope. I'm making the change on factual basis.

At this point, I'm stepping back and letting peer review take its course. For one, it's the wiki way, and two, I can't be the only one here qualified to do this. My comment above about brutal criticism was meant to be a joke, not a discouragement of ligit review. -- Essjay · Talk 15:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's a pity.

As I feared, the transformation of the Criticisms section is speeding up. Instead of giving signposts to articles that consider, with pros and cons, individual criticisms, such as the charge of anti-Semitism, it is again becoming itself a general discussion forum for all possible criticisms. Not quite what one expects of an encyclopaedia. When I come back from the couple of months’ travelling on which I am now setting out (and which already prevents me from doing work on this or any article), I may find that the article has turned in fact into “Criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, with an Introduction on the Church Itself”.

Lima 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lima, with all due respect, that's a little unfair. I for one think that the criticisms section is very well done, though the anti-semitism part could be shortened, since that is hardly unique to Roman Catholicism. But Essjay has really tried to approach his edits from an NPOV perspective, and anyone can edit his changes, which, despite his fine professional credentials, may indeed need "perfecting". The RCC, being the largest denomination on the planet, is obviously going to recieve a great deal of criticism, since the eyes of the world are upon it in a far more intense way than they are on, say the United Methodist Church or the Presbyterian Church USA. That's the price for being the big fish! President Bush, for example (and Bill Clinton before him) deals with a lot more scrutiny than other world leaders, since he is the big dog in the neighborhood. My point is simply that criticisms of the RCC are fair, as long as they don't dominate the article (they do not). Essjay has tried to be fair, and I think your sarcastic attitude is a little out of line. Hope you have a safe trip. KHM03 20:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After further review, I really do think that the criticisms section is very fair and relatively concise. It's not required to simply give signposts to other pages; any decent encyclopedia article will try and deal with criticisms honestly and concisely. This page, it seems to me, is an excellent example of that practice. "Well done" to all editors. KHM03 20:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the Roman catholic Church article is the only major religion article I have found on this site to have a "Criticisms" section? It just seems to be an open forum for people to post attacks on the church, and is not duplicated with other religions - even Islam, which certainly attracts a lot of criticisms. Either have a criticism section for all faiths or none. --213.40.3.66 12:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user: That's fair...go ahead write criticisms sections on other religious pages. KHM03 13:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should split off the criticism section into its own article? That'll help cut down on that length of the article as well. --Kadett 23:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm back, and I'm relieved the article isn't at all as bad as I feared it would become. I don't think I was sarcastic in expressing my alarm at what seemed likely to happen. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking an invitation had actually been made to add subsections on the model of the Antisemitism one. That subsection is still in isolation, which is fortunate, though it gives the curious impression that antisemitism is the only accusation against the Catholic Church deserving more than cursory consideration. If other such subsections had joined it, I submit that we would indeed have only a caricature of an article on the Roman Catholic Church. As it is, the Criticisms section comes to 18% of the article (ignoring the See Also, External Links, and Additional Reading parts), almost one fifth. Though this is somewhat excessive, it isn't the excrescence it might have been. I'm glad of that. -- Lima 19:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the 'criticisms' section doesn't contain much criticism, but rather outlines the churches position on controversial topics. For example, the sentences concerning homosexuals contains NO criticism of the church's position. I think the whole section needs to be excised, radically changed or renamed The Church's Position on some controversial subjects. Regards, Ashmoo 02:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a bit of a tendency that whenever anyone puts in an entry in the Criticisms section, someone else comes and puts in a 'response' explaining the church's reason for the criticised action or stance; then other people come and gradually write out all the parts which could be considered critical until it turns into a positive explanation or endorsement of Church policy. Looking back at the history, all of these Criticism paragraphs initially contained criticisms; but well-meaning editors have slowly written them out. TSP 09:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

TSP sums it up well; frequently the writing out of the criticism or the transformation of it into an "outlining of the Church's position" is accompanied by some (false) claim that this is the only religion article in all of Wikipedia where criticisms of the religion exist and therefore this article should be brought in line with how all those other articles (supposedly) are, devoid of any criticism. It's something that should be reined in; the Roman Catholic Church can and should withstand the things that people say in criticism of it being recorded here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

An anon user 202.156.6.69 added: 'although the practice of abstinence in some parts have logically seen a dramatic decrease in AIDS cases, STDs and unwanted pregnancies.' I removed it as the vague wording 'some parts' makes me suspicious of its accuracy. Could a cite be provided before it is reincluded in the article please? Ashmoo 23:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Portrayal in literature

I removed this as it is extraneous where it appears, but might be appropriate for a 'Portrayal in literature' section.

"The novel Shogun presents the Jesuits as in bitter rivalry with the Franciscans and controlling an economic monopoly in 16th century Japan. Other examples from imaginative history speak of Catholic religious orders almost as secret societies with their own agenda, sometimes in conflict with that of the Church."

--Erauch 19:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ecumenical

i'm under the impression that within the context of roman catholicism the term "ecumenical" means something completely different than the sense of the term i've long been familiar with. Gringo300 00:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ecumenical" means "worldwide," from the Greek. (compare Ursula K Le Guin's Ekumen). Various interdenominational movements use ecumenism to refer to their efforts to, erm, interdenominate. I'm not sure of the usage to which you refer, but it may be the broader usage of the term, such as the Ecumenical Councils that defined orthodox belief for the Church Universal. —AllanBz 02:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, strictly speaking, you are correct: whereas those Ecumenical Councils defined heretics out of the Church, current ecumenical efforts try to define heretics back in. —AllanBz 02:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ecumenical in the Roman Catholic sense can mean several things. In the sense of "Ecumenical council," it means that the entire Catholic Church (and by "Catholic Church" I mean all the churches in communion with the Pope, not just the Roman Church) is called together to make some sort of decision.

Ecumenical (for the RCC) can also refer to cooperation between "ecclesial communities," but not communion, either Eucharistic communion or full communion. (The RCC is careful about the use of the word "church" in reference to most denominations; the preferred RC term is "ecclesial (or ecclesiastical) communities.") In this sense, ecumenical refers to the various "dialogues" the Church engages in with other denominations. This is the sense of "ecumenical" most individuals are familiar with.

Finally, ecumenical can also mean efforts to reunite the Church. Technically, this is an extension of the above. The Church engages in dialogues with the goal of eventual reconciliation between the denominaitons, although this is really just a formality, as the Church understands it is highly unlikely that all Christians will be united under one denomination. The impetus for the effort to unite the denominations is Christ's prayer in John 17:11 "that they may be one."

I hope this helps, if you have other questions, feel free to ask. Essjay (talk) 02:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs. Catholic again

Someone changed the use of Roman Catholic Church in this article to Catholic Church, which as we've seen has been a disputed issue in this article. I'm reverting and reviving that discussion.

The reason that the church described in this article calls itself the Catholic Church is because it believes itself to be the Catholic Church, i.e. the group of Christians governed by the only legitimate hierarchy established by Jesus and succeeding directly from the apostles (see Lumen gentium). All other hierarchies it either believes to be valid but not legitimate (Orthodox, Anglican, etc.) or not valid at all. That's why calling the church in this article Catholic Church is such a loaded issue, because it implies a legitimacy which the rest of Christianity disputes. Pmadrid 02:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This argument has been made over and over again; I personally don't care which is used, I'll go with whatever the consensus is. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Should we consider an RfC on the matter, just to get a final decision on which term to use that can then be enforced? -- Essjay · Talk 04:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be for that. Pmadrid 05:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A corollary to this: It seems that there is constantly someone coming along changing one to the other. Once we make a decision about which should be used (and since nobody else has posted to this particular discussion, I'm guessing maybe the issue is dead) can we put an italic note at the top of the article to the effect of "The term Roman Catholic Church is utilized in this article to differentiate it from other churches using the term "Catholic." Please do not edit this community consensus."? -- Essjay · Talk July 3, 2005 07:34 (UTC)

I foresee a consensus between you two, which seems to be prejudged by the proposed italic note. "Roman church" has been added to the intro - but surely it's, "Church of Rome" (preferably thundered from the pulpit)? And when will "Whore of Babylon" take its place?--shtove 18:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I was one of those who came along and changed, unfortunately ignorant of the undercurrent of discussion and wiki protocol; but the blatant error seemed too important to leave alone. My only "agenda" is factual and ecclesiolgocial accuracy. I notice the Mormons did it well, by simply putting the real name of their chuch (Church of Jesus Chirst of Latter Day Saints), commonly known as (Mormons), and theretofore refer to themselves appropriately as LDS. Why can't we do the same, mention that in some circles, almost exclusively in English speaking countries, the terms are used interchangably, but the accurate distinction is what seems to have been brought up by the majority here that Catholic refers to the entire church in communion with the pope and Roman Catholic refers only to the Latin Rite particular church? Protoclete

Also, is there any reason for the talk page not to be reorganized so all this discussion is under the same heading rather than in half a dozen different ones?

Where does this go?

The power of appointing nearly all the bishops, even many of those of the Eastern Catholic Churches, is in the hands of one man, the Pope, who also appoints all those (the cardinals) who in turn choose what man next exercises the same power. The Pope is also the absolute ruler of an independent state, Vatican City State. There is no provision for deposing a Pope, and it is many centuries since any Pope has resigned.

Does this belong in the Criticism section, or should it be moved? I don't see any criticism.Stanselmdoc 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

I think you're right, it doesn't have any explicit criticism. I'm not wading back into the criticism section (I'm still healing from my last attempt), but I think it could be reworded to state expressly what it implies: One guy is in charge, and that isn't a good thing. (Not my opinion, just what I think the section is implying.) -- Essjay · Talk July 8, 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Consecrated Life

a) Disentangled the "Consecrated Life" from the section on the "Hierarchy", previously entitled "Organization", with which it has absolutely nothing to do – contrary to some public misconception that monks and nuns queue every 1st January outside St Peter's to collect their dole from the Holy Father.

b) Deleted "public", since all Consecrated Life is public in the sense that it is recognized in Canon Law.

c) Was the intention with this section to play to the lowest common denominator? Just in case the answer is in the affirmative, I did not dare to lift its tone. I have, however, tried to straighten out some problems and added some clarifications. There remains every scope for improvement.

Portress 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)