Talk:Catholic Church

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

September 2011

I have reverted two edits. This one (by User:153.104.122.1) removed the wikilink for Christianity from the lede with no reason stated, and this one (by User:WikiCatholicIndiana) removed Susan Wise Bauer's "The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade" from the bibliography on the grounds that it is an "unreliable source." I can see no reason for the first edit to stand, but would like an explanation of why the source in question has been deemed unreliable prior to its removal.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:28, 30 September 2011

Dear Mr. Clark, Apologies for my late response. Susan Wise Baur's book is not viewpoint neutral and takes positions that would be difficult to defend. For example, she asserts that Constantine invented the Catholic Church, despite the facts that the writings of Eusibius and others indicate quite the contrary. Baur is not Catholic, and in my opinion, is using this book to present a view of the Catholic Church that is more favorable to her own religion than to Catholicism. --wikiCatholicIndiana

Primary sources in the 'Doctrine' section

I apologise if I am raising a topic already WP:DEADHORSEd (I took a quick skim through the archives, and couldn't find anything relevant), but the 'Doctrine' section appears rather heavily based upon primary sources (most notably the church's own catechism), with much of the remainder not being particularly independent (most notably Schreck, who is employed by the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and whose forward is by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn. This does not appear in keeping with WP:PSTS, which suggests that WP:SECONDARY sources should predominate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about the sources but am not sure what can be done about it: people who write in detail about Catholic theology tend to be Catholics as you say. Haldraper (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely some people in the comparative religion or religious studies crowds write about it. I'd like to think that Catholic theology is sufficiently interesting that at least a few third-parties write about (if not, then we'll have to think about AfDing that article). But even a few more Schrecks is better than the catechism itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see WP:PSTS as at all relevant. It speaks about "primary sources" as sources that are "very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved (in the event), offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." Doctrine is not an event. As a reliable source of knowledge about what is Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching on some topic, an in-context quotation from The Watchtower is surely in no way inferior to statements by non-Jehovah's Witnesses about what the Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching is. Esoglou (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A catechism is surely a primary source on church doctrine. You can't get any closer to the "event" of indoctrination than a priest teaching the catechism to the youth of his parish. It is every bit as much a primary source as a press release, or a policy statement by a political campaign. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Hrafn, I have to disagree with you here. The current catechism is a teriary source. It's a compendium of church scholarship on the primary sources, which in this case are scripture, writings of the early fathers and doctors of the church, documents from ecclesiastical councils and synods, and papal bulls. It's not a third party tertiary source, that's true, but it is the most authorative and reliable source we have of what the church actually teaches.

Based on your comment about "a priest teaching the catechism to the youth of his parish", I think you're confusing the current Catechism of the Catholic Church with earlier works such as the Baltimore Catechism. They're two completely different beasts. The former is a well-researched, carefully written official and authoratative compendium of Catholic dogma, doctrine, canon law and tradition, whereas the latter is highly simplified and meant for a less educated audience, particularly children.

The doctrine section of the article appears to me to be an even-handed and accurate summary of the main points of Catholic doctrine as set forth in the CCC. It's mostly free of commentary and (potentially controversial) interpretation, and terse to the point of being lapidarian. I can't see anything controversial here.

As a SPS, the CCC is reliable as a source about the church's own teachings and rules. As a matter of fact, it's the definitive source. There are some sections of the CCC that are self-serving and should be treated with caution, but they are not used to support any of the material presented here.

Also, it's important to point out that this section is about what the Church officially teaches, not on what Catholics believe, which may or may not be consistent with official doctrine. When the term "Catholics believe" is used in the section, it refers to dogma, not doctrine. Catholics have no choice but to agree 100% with dogma if they are to be considered Catholic. With doctrine, canon law and tradition, there is a little more leeway for interpretation, and traditional Catholic scholars will often have a very different take than progressive Catholic scholars. In a top level article such as this, I think it's best to just summarize the official line without commentary, and leave scholarly interpretation to more specific articles. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

By the same argument wouldn't legislation also be a tertiary source? My point was that a catechism (whether detailed or simplified) is a statement of doctrine, and therefore like any other statement (be it catechism, legislation, press release of policy statement) is a primary source expression of the viewpoint of the stating party. Is Wikipedia's place here simply to repeat the high-points of the church doctrine enshrined in the catechism, or to provide WP:SECONDARY source analysis of Catholic doctrine? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The equivalent of legislation would be canon law. The equivalent of the catechism would be a legal compendium or encyclopedia. And yes, I do think that it is appropriate in a top level article to simply and briefly summarize the key points of official doctrine, and to leave the analysis and interpretation to more specialized articles. A top level article is meant to be a superficial but comprehensive overview of the topic. There simply isn't enough room in the article to go into depth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the equivalent of "a legal compendium or encyclopedia" would be the Catholic Encyclopedia. There can only be one official catechism (although, as you mention, there may be summaries or simplifications of it), just as there can be only one body of legislation for a jurisdiction -- hence my analogy. Anybody can write a legal compendium or encyclopedia, only the Vatican hierarchy can establish a catechism -- and it is their seal of approval that gives this catechism its status, not its basis in church scholarship (which presumably, like any other scholarship, has its competing views and interpretations). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a LEGAL encyclopedia, but a general puropose encyclopedia. The scope of topics is a lot broader than the CCC, just as the scope of topics in WP or EB is a lot broader and less specialized than a legal compendium or legal encyclopedia.

I'll point out again that there isn't anything controversial in this section. It's just a list of the main things that the Churtch officially teaches. The weight assigned to each sub-topic seems appropriate, and readers are made aware at the beggining of the section that the source is the CCC. What little commentary there is is also non-controversial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(i) Your point is irrelevant -- it is not the topic of the encyclopaedia that makes it a bad analogy, it is the fact that you can have more than one encyclopedia on a topic (be the topic law or whatever). You cannot have more than one catechism. (ii) My point was not 'controversy' or truth ("merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia") but rather emphasis -- whether it should be on the Vatican's articulation of its doctrine, or secondary source analysis of this doctrine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Of course you can, theoretically, have more than one catechism. And that was indeed the situation until the CCC came along. There were many other catechisms in use besides the Baltimore Catechism. There is nothing stopping a national bishops' conference or even a group of independent non-Catholic scholars from compiling one, and there is nothing to stop the Vatican from approvong it for use, as long as it accurately relected church dogma, doctrine, canon law and tradition. You're equating the CCC with codified law, when it is just a summary of Catholic (and sometimes even non-Catholic) scholarship on the actual primary sources. Canon lawyers do not go into ecclesiastical court armed with the CCC, but with the Code of Canon Law and other primary documents.

Your distiction between the Vatican's articulation of its doctrine, or secondary source analysis of this doctrine is off the mark. Like I said, there is simply no room for analysis in a article of this scope. The question is whether the Vatican's articulation of its doctrine or secondary source articulation should be used. It would, of course, be best to use the latter, if such a thing existed. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the third-party literature that even comes close to the CCC in terms of comprehensiveness and authority.

The fact that the CCC is a SPS does not exclude it as a reliable source for it's own teachings here on WP. It meets all of the guidelines of WP:SPS, at least as far as the material in this article is concerned. Now, there are parts of the CCC that are self-serving and/or apologetic, and should not be used without independent scholarly analysis (the sections dealing with discrimination against homosexuals, for example). The topics discussed in this article, though, are pretty much universally agreed upon as being key church teachings, including by scholars of all stripes.

If you know of other sources that can be used, by all means feel free to introduce them, especially if you perceive there is a bias or innacuracy. Or at least point out any biases or inncuracies that you see. I, for my part, consider the section pretty much even-handed, and, though an ex-Catholic, do not harbor any particular sympathy for the Church, to put it mildly. And I think even a traditional Catholic like Pat Buchanan would agree. I'm curious about what you think is wrong with the article, rather than with the sources. You really haven't said so yet. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a "viewpoint" (Hrafn) about the Church's teaching. It is what the Church teaches at the highest level. When published, it was explicitly presented as "a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms", and acceptance of it is the condition for admission into corporate union with the Catholic Church of Anglican bodies. So, as I said, it is what the Church teaches, not a viewpoint about the Church's teaching. For viewpoints or analysis of the Church's teaching, you must go elsewhere. But you can no more omit an account of what the Church does teach than you can, when speaking about what Homer and Virgil said of the gates of horn and ivory, omit what they said, while of course citing other sources for an analysis or evaluation of the Homeric and Virgilian passages. Is it perhaps possible that really we all agree on that? Esoglou (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Actually the primary sources are the Creed, church council canons, encyclicals etc etc. The catechism is a secondary or tertiary source par excellence, within the meaning of the act, as I now see has been ably pointed out above. It is prepared as a compendium and summary for popular use, and is exactly the sort of source we should use. When simply outlining bare doctrine, the fact that it is not independent does not matter. On the question of its own (current) beliefs, the church itself is the best authority. At the same time, ideally some general references to more independent summaries miight be added as secondary references. But does anyone actually think the catechism is going to be wrong on this? How would that work? Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely convinced by these arguments, but it is clear that my own argument is getting nowhere. I am therefore declaring WP:DEADHORSE against myself and withdrawing (unlike a surprisingly large minority of editors, I am no big fan of lost causes, and feel that windmills are a silly thing to tilt at). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "A god who conceives children with a mortal woman, a wise man who calls upon us to work no more, to judge no more, but to heed the signs of the imminent apocalypse, a justice that accepts the innocent man as a proxy sacrifice; someone who has his disciples drink his blood; sins against a god, atoned for by a god - are we to believe that such things are still believed?" Nietzsche. The doctrine that only writers who accept Catholic doctrine are suitable to use in the section on doctrine, that on the section on beliefs the church itself is the best authority is pretty flawed imo - the article remains in the hands of those who think anyone who clicks on the article to find out about the church is doing something alike to walking into a church and asking the priest to explain the church to him - but i dont think thats right Sayerslle (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome to add other sources (as well), but it is likely they will give a different result? How would that work? The catechism includes or excludes valid doctrine, or just mis-states it? Let us know what you find! Johnbod (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholicity

Many Churches claim to be the Catholic Church. I believe the title should be changed to "Roman Catholic Church" for the sake of neutrality. "Orthodox Church" was changed to "Eastern Orthodox Church" in spite of the fact that there were Orthodox Christians of the Western Rite within the bounds of the Orthodox Church. Thus, the existence of Eastern-rite Roman Catholics does not prevent the title of the page from being changed to "Roman Catholic Church." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.178.35.173 (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia's policy WP:POVTITLE is to use the title commonly used in English media sources, even where that title is not strictly NPOV as you point out. IMO the issue you raise is sufficiently covered by the "aka" line in the introduction. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC))

Care to comment?

Catholicism: The belief that homosexual intercourse is a disgusting and immoral act once a person has reached puberty.

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.5.15 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Birth of Mary as general Christian belief vs. Catholic Belief.

I find it quite disturbing that editors from this article would cite specific Catholic beliefs such as Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Virgin Mary yet will not include the virgin birth concerning Mary. Hello? Aren't Catholics Christians?

The Roman Catholic Church, having had primacy of these beliefs since the early councils have erected, defined and proclaimed the divine motherhood and virginal birth of Jesus Christ since the Apostolic Age, yet the article will not include it because it is also shared by other Christian denominations-----who came in the picture in MUCH LATER years. Get it?

Catholics are Christians too, as stated by the article and they have had held these beliefs longer, which makes the Mary's virginal birth of Jesus inclusive in the "Catholic beliefs concerning Mary"...

In contrast, the distinction SHOULD be made in Protestant Articles, where they reject the other dogmas yet share in the belief of Mary's virgin birth of Jesus, not the other way around because Catholics are Christians who also share in the belief that the Mary gave virgin birth to Jesus SINCE the Apostolic Age.

I wish someone in the future would take this into consideration and make that correct distinction for purposes of total clarity, neutrality and transparency for Catholic-Christian readers. LoveforMary (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Umm...second sentence of the section re: Mary - "The Church holds Mary, as Perpetual Virgin and Mother of God, in special regard." Pretty sure the virgin birth is quite heavily implied by "Perpetual Virgin and Mother of God."  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 15:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ECC

The lead needs to include the Eastern Catholic Churches: the title of the article isn't "Roman Catholic Church", and all Catholics (for the purpose of the following discussion, defined as, "in communion and regular standing with the Bishop of Rome") aren't Roman Catholic. The Eastern Catholic Churches are equally a part of the "Catholic Church" as is the Latin Church/Roman Catholics: calling all by the name, "Roman Catholic" is a common error that shouldn't be perpetuated by Wikipedia: my suggestion is, "The Catholic Church, containing the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches", with the relevant information (Latin rite, Byzantine and Syrian rites, sui iuris Churches) in a note. Since I can't improve the deficient first sentence without consensus, I come here to seek it. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been quite heavily discussed in the past, as a search of the talk page archives (as recently as Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 51) will reveal. The "common error" that is perpetuated (outside of Wikipedia, at least) is that Latin Rite = Roman Catholic, which is incorrect. "Roman Catholic" is, by definition, a reference to all Catholic Churches in communion with Rome. The Latin Rite is a subset of this group, as are the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not again?! ;-) Please read Roman Catholic (term). The term "Roman Catholic" correctly used includes both Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholics. It does NOT only refer to the Latin Rite. Anglicanus (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Cjmclark and Anglicanus. The Eastern Churches are part of the Roman Catholic Church, as they are in communion with the bishop of Rome. I have never seen the term "Roman Catholic Church" used by the church heirarchy in reference to only the Latin Rite. The Eastern Rites are always included. Eastern Rite Catholics are Roman Catholics in exactly the same way that Latin Rite Catholics are. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II is at peer review

Pope John Paul II is at peer review -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)