Talk:Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Catholic Church has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Religion (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Catholic Church at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Doctrine / History / Social issues split[edit]

Currently, the Social issues section is separated from Doctrine by the History section. Yet, the Church's stand on social issues is also a matter of doctrine, however debatable this could be to some. Shouldn't Social issues come under Doctrine, or at least, following it. Why is it after History? If this has been discussed before, I apologize. I haven't looked at the archives.--Coquidragon (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It comes after history only because it began as a "contemporary issues" section as an extension of the history section, elaborating on current church history. Based on its current form, placing contiguous or immediately below the doctrine section would be appropriate and logical. I support the proposal. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. That makes sense.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made some other adjustments in content order, reflecting previous discussions regarding redundant content as well. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church redirects here[edit]

I added this hatnote:

"Roman Catholic Church" redirects here. This may mean more specifically the Latin Church, one of 23 autonomous particular churches alongside the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches .

Which @Dominus Vobisdu: reverted with the summary "Not according to the Church. Slang usage is not of interest here."

Hatnotes are meant to help readers to find their way to the right article. Not all readers are members of the Catholic Church. It is a fact that many people say "Roman Catholic Church" when they mean "Latin Church". Some of them are Wikipedia editors who will wikilink to Roman Catholic Church when they should be wikilinking to Latin Church. We need to help readers get from the wrong article to the right one. This could be done in a few ways:

  1. making Roman Catholic Church a dab with Catholic Church and Latin Church as outlinks
  2. a {{redirect}} hatnote
  3. a {{distinguish}} hatnote
  4. Hoping that after reading far enough down through the article the reader will realise they are at the wrong one and learn what the right one is.

Although my edit was #2, I have no objection to #1 or #3 either. Currently it seems like #4 is implemented, and I don't think that's good enough. jnestorius(talk) 02:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yours is a solution in search of a problem. I highly doubt that a significant amount of readers type in "Roman Catholic Church" when they want to read about the Latin Rite, instead. And practically everyone that wants to read about the Latin Rite specifically will already be familiar with the correct terminology.
The cost of conveniencing at most a handful of readers is far offset by the cost of confusing the rest as to the meaning of the term, which your hatnote does indeed do. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Confusion already exists about "Roman Catholic (term)" and adding an informative hatnote will only serve to educate, not confuse. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The hatnote proposed did the exact opposite. And I think you overestimate the confusion on the part of readers looking for the specific articles. If readers are that confused, it means they practically always intend to end up at this more general article, not the more arcane Latin Rite article. Like I said, a solution in search of a problem. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Dominus Vobidsu; "Roman Catholic" historically has referred to all churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Its use referring to the Latin Church in particular would have to be documented in a significant number of relevant reliable sources to warrant such prominent disambiguation. Anyone not familiar with the terminology can refer to the "Name" and "Organization" sections here for clarification to help find the information they need. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The articles Roman Catholic (term) and Latin Church already document precisely the confusion a hatnote would address. Have a look through the matches at Google Scholar search "roman catholic" "greek catholic" and observe how many imply that Greek Catholic is a sibling of Roman Catholic rather than a subtype. Catholics may not often be confused, but Anglicans, say, often are, and those readers must be catered for. If you think the wording of the hatnote adds to the confusion, a different wording would solve that. One effort is this:
"Roman Catholic Church" redirects here. It is not to be confused with the Latin Church, one of 23 autonomous particular churches alongside the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.
jnestorius(talk) 12:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, vague allusions to confusing use is not sufficient. You must document with relevant reliable sources that there is confusion, or that "Roman Catholic" has taken a new meaning in parallel with "Greek Catholic". Such a parallel meaning is revisionist, changing the historical meaning. It is not an inherently offensive development, but the development must be documented, perhaps from contemporary dictionary entries. It would be prohibited WP:Original Research to draw this conclusion within Wikipedia, rather than cite this conclusion externally. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with Dominus Vobisdu. In all this discussion, your are forgetting Roman Rite. The official name of what in English is commonly referred as "Catholic Church" is "Roman Catholic Church," hence, the reason for the redirect. If a person is knowledgeable enough as to want to search for the Latin Church or the Roman-Rite Church, which is only one of the rites in the Latin Church, that person would know that Roman Catholic Church > Latin Church > Roman-Rite Church. The current hatnotes are enough. There is no need to clarify that "Roman Catholic Church" is not the "Latin Church."--Coquidragon (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Protoclete just created today, without waiting for the result of this discussion, the Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation). Since this already done, although I don't agree and find it unnecessary, instead of the hatnote, I would suggest just to redirect "Roman Catholic Church" to the disambiguation page (which was the first of the options recommended). This way, the needs for these several editors who have shown concern are met, and we skip the use of the hatnote.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, i missed this particular discussion, re: hatnote vs. disambiguation. I was just going through my long-neglected list of "to-do" edits, based on a previous conversation thread, had noted the disambiguation might be away to avoid all the terminology discussion in other pages. Protoclete (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the hatnote. Would also support options 1 or 3. Option 4 is no longer acceptable. Am open to an alternative wording for the hatnote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be speedily deleted. It is a poor shadow of the much more firmly based Roman Catholic (term). There is no "Roman Rite Catholic Church", a term not actually used. ... The "consensus" by which the title of this article was changed from "Roman Catholic Church" (as in other English-language encyclopedias) to "Catholic Church" was based in part on the condition that "Roman Catholic Church" would direct to here. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. As others have said, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, and to the extent it may is already covered by Roman Catholic (term). Haldraper (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
If this is the case, then I withdraw my support for the redirect to the dab, which should be deleted, and reinstate that the hatnote is not needed.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Although I expressed above the opinion that Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be deleted, I have changed my mind. I have however converted the article into the normal form of a disambiguation page in line with MOS:DAB. It has been an article of a different character, giving questionable arguments for what an editor or editors thought was the proper meaning of various terms. Esoglou (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
About exactly a year ago, I converted Latin Rite to a dab page. This was viewed as somewhat unpopular and quickly reverted. However, considering the current discussion, I thought it might be useful to again propose revisiting this as an option. Elizium23 (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the edits to bring Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) more in line with the editorial guidelines. The purpose of a disambiguation page, though, is to clarify when a term is ambiguous, yes? And then give links to the possible meanings? This is a perfect case for the need for a disambiguation page, even if it includes a link to the more comprehensive Roman Catholic (term) page, these serve two different purposes. The Church is not a democracy even if Wikipedia is, and some things, like equating "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" might be popularly understood to be true but are simply not correct, ecclesiologically speaking (and this really is not even a discussion anywhere but Wikipedia). So, on one hand, you have lots of people who popularly understand "Roman Catholic" to mean "Catholic", yet the experts on the topic more often understand "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Catholic", or even Roman and Catholic - so a disambiguation page allows a starting point, then they can go look at each one of those options and find out who, why, or in what language it is meant by the term. Protoclete (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Protoclete: On the contrary, not only "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" is popularly understood to be the same, but in the Academia, Roman Catholic Church refers to the institution under the Roman Pontiff. "Roman" means under the authority of the Pope, it doesn't mean the "Roman Rite." There is: the Roman Catholic Church (under the authority of the Roman Pontiff), which includes the Latin Church (one of the 23 sui generis Roman Catholic Churches), itself which includes the Roman Rite (one of several rites used by the Latin Church of the Roman Catholic Church). In English, the Roman Catholic Church, also known simply as the Catholic Church, is to be distinguished from the Orthodox Catholic Church, also known in the English language as the Eastern Orthodox Church. To confuse Roman Catholic Church with Latin Church is what, using your own words, is simply not correct. There is also no Roman-rite Catholic Church, hence is also not correct to confuse Roman-rite with Latin Church, since there are other rites still in use in the Latin Church, not only the Roman, although it is the ordinary approved rite. The words church and rite, although related, are themselves to be distinguished. There is the Latin Church, most of which uses the Roman-Rite.--Coquidragon (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I do mean this respectfully,Coquidragon, but what academia are you talking about? I would not be surprised if, say, a journalism program following the AP style guide (which equates Roman Catholic and Catholic) holds this position, but in Catholic theology this debate has been basically settled. I would never suggest that a Rite and Church are the same, nor would i ever be caught using the term "Roman-Rite" Catholic Church - so perhaps you are confusing my response with someone else's?
The Catholic Church does not use "Roman Catholic" of itself, except where ecumenical dialogue suggests it, and even that is often very carefully done - when we talk to Lutherans, for example, it is the Latin Church they are in dialogue with (hence, Lutheran-Roman Catholic). Just go search the Vatican website, which favors "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic" by a margin of about 15:1, including all official publications (Encyclicals, the Catechism, Apostolic Letters, etc). Protoclete (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, like you say, in the Catholic theology this debate has been settled. The Roman Catholic Church today have been simply called Catholic Church. This is the theology taught in the English language, not journalism, so I don't know what you are talking about. Yet, the lack of use, popular and in academia, of the term Roman Catholic Church referring to the Catholic Church as a whole doesn't equate it use to refer to the Latin Church. The Lutherans are in dialogue, not with the Latin Church, but with the Catholic Church as a whole, with the Roman Catholic Church. Any advances in relations apply to all 23 churches of the Roman Catholic Church, no only the Latin Church. Another matter is that when Lutherans become Catholic, they join the Latin Church, yet this is based on culture, since Lutherans are themselves sons of the Latin Church. So, the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue, is not Lutheran-Latin Church, but Lutheran-Catholic Church. More over, in the English language, as it is well explained and sourced in this wikipedia, many Easter Catholics call themselves Roman Catholics.
Anyways, Protoclete, I think we are retaking a topic well discussed in this talk page. We can both read the archives and learn more about the other's position, reasoning and sources. Let's just leave it at this. Thanks so much for your feedback.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
There is surely no doubt that what people in general understand by "Roman Catholic Church" is what is dealt with in the article Catholic Church, and that this is, at least for Wikipedia, the primary topic for "Roman Catholic Church". The Wikipedia manual of style states (MOS:DABPRIMARY) that the primary topic "should not be mixed in with the other links". It recommends that "the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence" and that, "when the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article". That is precisely the case here. Roman Catholic Church is a redirect to Catholic Church, and we must either follow MOS:DABPRIMARY or first get that changed (a very difficult task) or, of course, change the redirect page Roman Catholic Church (even this would be no easy task). As long as Wikipedia remains as it is, we are obliged to keep Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) as it now stands. Esoglou (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@Esoglou: Two questions: 1. Should we also add the Roman Rite to the dab? I actually did, but deleted it since I wanted to ask for feedback first. 2. Should we go ahead and redirect "Roman Catholic Church" to the dab?--Coquidragon (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
1. I don't know of any source that uses "Roman Catholic Church" to mean Roman Rite. Do you? And is there a Carthusian Catholic Church too, to refer to those Latin Catholics who use the Carthusian liturgical rite?
2. In line with the rules in MOS:DABPRIMARY, Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) points to the redirect page Roman Catholic Church in order to indicate its primary topic. MOS:DABPRIMARY also says: "When a page has "(disambiguation)" in its title – i.e., it is the disambiguation page for a term for which a primary topic has been identified – users are most likely to arrive there by clicking on a top link from the primary topic article, generated by a template in the {{otheruses}} series." In other words, the redirect to Catholic Church is still needed, even more than before. Esoglou (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
To my first question, you are completely right. I did what I knew shouldn't do: mix church and rite. To my second question, thanks for explaining. I now understand better how dab pages work. Wouldn't we now need a hatnote here for the new dab page?--Coquidragon (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know who put it there and when, but it's there already. Esoglou (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the current one to Catholic Church (disambiguation)? We would need now the Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation).--Coquidragon (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You are right, and I was wrong. I'll try to do something about it. Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Roman Catholic = Latin Church examples[edit]

Some sources that identify "Roman Catholic" with "Latin Church":

Examples of government use in census reports and of scholarly usage of "Roman Catholic" to refer to the Latin Church within the Catholic Church:

  • Government of Canada]. "Religion". Catholic 12,810,705; split into: Roman Catholic 12,728,885; Ukrainian Catholic 51,790; Greek Catholic, n.o.s. 14,255; etc 
  • Government of Poland. "Religion". Religion: Roman Catholic ( 97 % ) , Orthodox (1.5%) , Greek Catholic (1%) , others (0.5 % ) 
  • Government of Romania. "RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION ACCORDING TO THE 2011 CENSUS" (PDF). Roman Catholic 4.62%, Greek-Catholic 0.80% 
  • Government of Hungary. "Religions" (PDF). Religions: Roman Catholic 51.9%, Calvinist 15.9%, Lutheran 3%, Greek Catholic 2.6%, other Christian 1%, other or unspecified 11.1%, unaffiliated 14.5% 
  • Czech Government. "Religions" (PDF). Religions: Roman Catholic Church 1 082 463 ; Greek Catholic Church 9 883 
  • Slovak Government. "Religion". Roman Catholic Church (68.9 %), Greek Catholic Church (4.1 %) 
  • Government of Ukraine. "Religion". communities of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church 3,765 ;communities of the Ukrainian Roman Catholic Church 942 
  • Faulk, Edward (2007). 101 Questions and Answers on Eastern Catholic Churches. Paulist Press. p. 7. ISBN 9780809144419. Retrieved 4 January 2015. While this term ["Roman Catholic Church"] has never been part of the official title of the Catholic Church, it can be thought of as synonymous with the more correct Latin Rite Church 
  • Fortescue, Adrian (2001). The Uniate Eastern Churches. Gorgias Press LLC. p. 3. ISBN 9780971598638. Retrieved 4 January 2015. A Roman Cathodic is a Catholic who uses the Roman rite, just as an Armenian Cathodic is one who uses the Armenian rite. 
  • Engebretson, Kath (2010-08-17). International Handbook of Inter-religious Education. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 127. ISBN 9781402092602. Retrieved 4 January 2015. It must be accepted that "Roman Catholic and "Roman Church" are not equivalent terms [...] In saying this, I realise I am swimming against the current of popular expression, the practice of many writers [...] and, possibly, some Eastern Catholic Churches. 
  • Jones, Rhidian (2011-06-30). The Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England 2nd Edition: A Handbook. A&C Black. p. vii. ISBN 9780567616418. Retrieved 4 January 2015.  Arguably these [Eastern Catholic] Churches are Roman Catholic [...]; however, they are not referred to as such in common parlance [...] The Latin Church [...] is also correctly referred to as the Roman Catholic Church.
  • Mahieu, Stéphanie; Naumescu, Vlad (2008). Churches In-between: Greek Catholic Churches in Postsocialist Europe. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 24. ISBN 9783825899103. Retrieved 4 January 2015.  this relatively small community is now divided into three religious groups: Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Orthodox.
  • "Immigrant social aspirations and American education". Canadian Slavonic Papers. JSTOR 40867412. 1979. Greek Catholic priests, like Orthodox but unlike Roman Catholic priests, could marry. 
  • "No title given". JSTOR 2711932. the laymen and clergymen who established programs of parochial education in Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant immigrant congregations 

So it's safe to say then that saying "RC Church" when only the Latin church is intended is intended is not just "slang" - it's quite commonplace, even with official published sources. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Any response to this? @Dominus Vobisdu:'s original contestation [I highly doubt that a significant amount of readers type in "Roman Catholic Church" when they want to read about the Latin Rite, instead. And practically everyone that wants to read about the Latin Rite specifically will already be familiar with the correct terminology] looks untenable: many Eastern Catholics and Anglicans (rightly or wrongly) make just such an interpretation, and a hatnote is needed to cater for them (without necessarily endorsing their view; that is the virtue of the {{distinguish}} family of hatnotes). jnestorius(talk) 14:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
With the creation of the disambiguation page, this is no longer an issue. They type "Roman Catholic Church," but get redirected to "Catholic Church" article. The first thing they find is a link to the "Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation)." The explanation and link to Latin Church is there. Wikipedia guidelines are met.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. I interpreted the intervening discussion as dissatisfaction with the existence of Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) as well. As long as that DAB is present and hatnoted, my concerns are addressed. jnestorius(talk) 15:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I urge caution with using the Romanian, Greek and Ukrainian statistics, as these may be direct translations, without necessarily considering how "Roman Catholic" is used in English. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. By the same token, not all Wikipedia readers are native speakers of English. jnestorius(talk) 14:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Which categories should this article have, along with its two organization subsections: Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Church, and main three categories?

  • Catholic Church (all 23 churches) - Roman Catholic Church, Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Holy See
  • Latin Church (1 church) - Catholic terms, Roman Catholic Church organisation
  • Catholic Eastern Churches (22 churches) - Eastern Catholicism, Roman Catholic Church organisation, Catholic terms, Chalcedonianism
  • Category: Catholicism - Chalcedonianism, Christian denominational families, Western culture
  • Category: Roman Catholic Church - Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Catholicism, Catholic denominations
  • Category: Eastern Catholicism - Catholicism, Eastern Christianity

My proposal, with some but few changes:

  • Category: Catholicism - Chalcedonianism, Christian denominational families, Western culture
  • Category: Roman Catholic Church - Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Catholicism, Catholic denominations
  • Catholic Church, hence Roman Catholic Church - Roman Catholic Church, Holy See
  • Latin Church - Western Christianity, Catholic terms, Roman Catholic Church organisation
  • Catholic Eastern Churches - Eastern Catholicism, Catholic terms, Roman Catholic Church organisation
  • Category: Eastern Catholicism - Eastern Christianity

All categories included: Chalcedonianism, Christian denominational families, Western culture, Christian organizations established in the 1st century, Catholicism, Catholic denominations, Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church Organization, Holy See (which is included in Apostolic Sees), Western Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Catholic terms, Eastern Catholicism--Coquidragon (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The category Category:Eastern Christianity contains, among the usual suspects, those eastern rite churches in communion with Rome. Are they really eastern? Anyway, that particular argument was lost in a recent CFD. So the precedent has been set - a category can contain seemingly incongruous elements if at one time that element might have been part of the whole. It follows therefore that the eastern catholic rites in communion with the Holy Se are also part of the Western category since they are now part of the whole, even if they were at one time not part of it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is for the whole Catholic Church, both Western and Eastern. If you add one category, you should add both (Western and Eastern) for consistency. If not, the same way that Eastern Catholic Churches is included in Eastern Christianity, it is the Latin Church article which should be included in Western Christianity. This is what Esoglou, fist, and myself now, are trying to explain. Please read the description of the same category you are trying to add.
Can you please add a link to the CFD that you referring too? This way we can all work with he same information. Thanks in advance. Your point about categories and seemingly incongruous elements raise a good question. Will the addition of the Latin Church to the category suffice?--Coquidragon (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
CFD [here]. If the Latin rite particular churches can enter the Eastern Christianity category then the makes a mockery of that category. More than ever I'm convinced that both the Eastern and Western categories are ill conceived as there is so much leakage from one to the other. Both should be deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If, to paraphrase what you say, the Melkite Catholic Church, the Malankara Catholic Church, and similar paricular churches can enter the Westertn Christianity category, then that makes a mockery of that category. You may be right about trying to fit Catholic Church into either. But the category "Western Christianity" should be kept for Latin Church, Lutheranism, etc.; and the category "Eastern Christianity" should, according to common usage, be kept for Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc. I mention "common usage", because, if you speak with someone of the tradition of the Church of the East, as I have, you will find that they include the Byzantines under "Western Christianity". --Esoglou (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. So, in order not to make a mockery of the categories, but following the same reasoning behind the CFD, since the Roman Catholic Church is composed by churches both in Western and Eastern Christianity, and since the category Eastern Catholicism, under which Eastern Catholic Churches is located, is already included in Eastern Christianity, the addition of Latin Church to the Category Western Christianity should suffice. I have already added the category to the Latin Church accordingly. I have read your posts and understand where you are coming from. Thanks for raising this issue. --Coquidragon (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Two answers since we were both editing at the same time. --Coquidragon (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I would support including both Category:Western Christianity and Category:Eastern Christianity in the article (unless these are already included as part of existing categories). --Zfish118 (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Added said categories. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catholic Church/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LeftAire (talk · contribs) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Part 1[edit]

Hi! I suppose that I'll start off as the reviewer of this article. I wouldn't be surprised if other reviewers came into the mix by the time this process is over, but I'll do what I can by aiming to give this article a thorough read, and check sources wherever I can. Please give me until roughly 7-8 days to read through this article; I should have some comments up by then. Thanks! LeftAire (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
After reading the article twice, I decided that due to the depth of this article, it would be best to divide the review this article in parts. This first review deals with the lead to the Virgin Mary and devotions subsection of the Doctrine section. Please bear with me, I'm still a relative novice at this craft!


  • Regarding citations #9 and #10, please fix all of the links and re-assign them to the proper ones.
  • Done; strange issue indeed. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If the Assumption of Mary is already cited in the Virgin Mary subsection, it doesn't have to be in the lead. (possibly be a minor quibble of mine)
  • Comment Left for now (cites in lead are a sticky issue, would like additional feedback). --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


  • 'The name "Catholic Church" is the most common designation used in official church documents' citation doesn't seem to point to this directly. Though this is likely true, if possible find a link or clarify the link given, please.
  • Comment Concur that this reference is insufficient, no action yet taken --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Additionally, documents of other Churches, such as the Orthodox communion, may also refer to themselves as simply The Catholic Church, Therefore, it may be wise to use a more specific title for those in full communion with the Papacy.Ri Osraige (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Organisation and Demographics[edit]

  • There's a recurring theme throughout this article of section leads having and not having citations. Not sure how problematic that will be for this article reaching a GA status, but something to keep in mind.
  • Comment For Feature Article status, consistency here would likely be important; for GA, I do not think it alone a bar, although minor work for consistency ought to continue. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a feedback loop in the development of the lead sections; new content might be added to the lead that was not in the main body, or visa versa. Content in one section might be moved to another. "Sync'ing" the lead references with body content is a challenge! --Zfish118 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Add a citation for the first paragraph, in particular about Francis' election
  • Period on the end of 'representatives'.

Canon Law[edit]

  • Last citation of the first paragraph of the canon law subsection is a dead link.
  • Comment/done Added note that a subscription is now required to access the article; added an additional citation to a free site. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Add citation 36 to the end of the second paragraph of the canon law subsection.
  • Comment Links were updated since this was posted; uncertain which link you are referring to. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The last sentence of the second paragraph, sorry for my lack of specificity. LeftAire (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous Particular Churches[edit]

  • A citation at the end of the first paragraph seems appropriate.
  • Done (will address other points later) --Zfish118 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Use this link for the citation for the second paragraph rather than the one given. Western Church/Roman Catholicism. It should suffice for at least one of the sentences. Also, is it because of the continuity that (Roman) Catholicism claims with the Apostles of the New Testament the reason why that it considered itself to be the oldest and largest branch? Perhaps a more explicit link on the website can be found attesting to that statement. If not (or if a more suitable source cannot be found), rewrite/delete it.
  • Done Added both essay to citation, removed vaguely stated "oldest and largest branch" --Zfish118 (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Citation for the last sentence of the last paragraph

Dioceses, parishes, and religious orders

  • Citations for the second (last sentence) and third paragraphs.


  • Could be a minor quibble, but for the second citation for the first sentence of the second paragraph, I had to read through quite a bit of material in order to find that link (Chapter II, Paragraph 14). Considering that other sources have the chapter (and paragraph if available) listed for the Catechism of the Catholic Church links and the like, it will better to make these type of citations more consistent in order to ease the ability to read and find the sources in the near future.
  • Done Added paragraph to citation. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly a citation for the Luther removal of scripture of the Catholic Bible? May remove scratch mark later.

Nature of the Church[edit]

  • The phrase 'one True Church' is a phrase that isn't used explicitly in the citation given, but is with another source used on this page: THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X . The other two phrases in quotation marks (the universal sacrament of salvation for the human race" and the "true religion") cannot be confirmed from that citation as of now. I'll re-read it again to make sure, but please find better citations for those last two if possible.
  • Comment though I do not favor that phrasing, there had been a citation that explicitly stated "One, true church"; I do not know why it was removed. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As for ex voto and baptism of blood, is the last section of paragraph 14 of the second chapter of Lumen Gentium supposed to have cover it? It seems more implied if anything...
  • Done replace with citation to Catholic Encyclopedia (which I believe had formerly been there, but was inexplicably removed) --Zfish118 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Mary and Devotions Nothing of note as of now. I was thinking about citations for the last section, though I wonder how necessary it really is.

First portion is done. I'll be back hopefully within the next 2 days or so with more information regarding the other sections. Please, feel free to contest and get advice from users/contributors, as I likely will do the same (my second GA review, and the first one of this significance). LeftAire (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I will review your comments in the coming days. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]


Western Rites

  • The link from the first citation does not provide any information what is presented; find a citation that matches the information given.
  • done; revised section to match a published source. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Please add a citation for the link about the Roman rites and the post-1969 Roman missal.
  • Done, added two sources
  • That information about the history of the revisions of the missal from some citations (in particular noting the changes of the missals from the different popes year by year, and the last sentence).
  • I fixed a citation for the first sentence in the last paragraph, but a citation is needed for that last sentence.

Eastern Rites[edit]

  • No citations for any of the information listed. Please find some for those paragraphs.
  • Done Added two sources. Do not believe list needs a source (could be covered by OCE if needed)


  • Although I can see the use of the citation from the Catholic Encylopedia, I'm not so keen about the CCC 1399 being used there. Could a better source be used?
  • 'Non-Catholics are ordinarily prohibitted from receiving the Eucharist as well' needs a citation; I may find a citation for this, but if you can before me, that's fine.
  • done Added CoCC291, in addition to the existing source which elaborates.
  • The ability of Eastern Catholic Churches to confirm infants citation doesn't seem to be affirmed from the link provided. (Was able to find an English source online 1990 CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES to confirm it; my knowledge of Latin is very little)
  • Comment Did you fix this one already? CCEO 695 seems spot on! --Zfish118 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Whoops...My mistake. LeftAire (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Anointing of the Sick

  • A citation for paragraph, please.


  • Please add a citation for the 'But after becoming a Roman Catholic priest, a man may not marry (see Clerical celibacy) unless he is formally laicised' sentence.
  • The first citation of the second paragraph is a dead link.
  • Done found live version
  • The Only bishops and priests can administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance) and Anointing of the Sick sentence needs new citations, as the ones given are not sufficient.

Social and Cultural Issues[edit]

  • The citation for the first sentence only speaks of charity, and not much else. Please find a better citation.
  • done, "Social gospel" is a mostly Protestant view, so I removed that. Added a source for the rest. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Does the 'For those who are unmarried, particularly those called to the single life or celibacy, self-mastery and discipline, with the support of friendship, are the means of finding peace' refer to all in general or just to homosexuals (as it appears to be in the citation given, and in the Homosexuality section below)? If so, please find a better citation given.
  • comment, Removed this sentence. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Divorce and declarations of nullity[edit]

  • The citations involving Pauline and Petrine privilege are repeated again. I do realize that the first instance of the citations used was used via footnote, but does it need to be repeated verbatim later?
  • Perhaps provide some citations concerning the divorce law introductions for the countries listed and those w/out it.
  • Remove the divorce law by country from the paragraph and perhaps add it to the Main Article section along with Annulment (Catholic Church
  • Done (divorce law by country) --Zfish118 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Please either add the Catholic Church HIV/AIDS link either as part of the main article section under contraception like the suggestion for the previous section noted in this review or add it under the see also.
Also add a citation for the second paragraph with sentence that includes: 'there is significant controversy within and outside the church regarding the use of condoms as a means of limiting new infections, as condom use ordinarily constitutes prohibited contraceptive use'.
  • Citation for the last sentence.
  • The first sentence about IVF has a citation that is a dead link. Please find another citation.
  • Comment while "live" sources are ideal, a reliable source need not be available online. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm...That's fair. LeftAire (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Social Services

  • I would think that the last two paragraphs need some citations. I realize that the information given consists of names of organizations, however I still under the impression that citations are necessary.

Women and Ordination[edit]

  • I think that the first citation given (though a very intriguing read on a personal level, my favorite of the citations listed so far) could be interpreted as being focused solely on the United States. Another citation showing the nuns impact outside of the States to highlight their worldwide impact would help.
  • done added additional source.[2]

Part two is finished *Sigh of Relief*.(Yay, I get to tackle the History section next!) Hopefully I'll have something up in the following days for the History section. Ask for more questions if you run into anything, I'll try to assist you wherever I can. Mind if I ask you if there are any other significant contributors to the article that can assist you? LeftAire (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • There have been several authors recently involved. The GA drive mostly finished around new years, so I image most moved on to other projects and would need to trickle back in. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Eh, the things that need to be fixed are relatively minor in contrast to the other two. I'll give a review below within the hour after re-reading again. LeftAire (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Part 3[edit]

For the history section, I have had very little to do with developing this section. My understanding, however, is that it has been pretty stable for several years now after being carefully trimmed to nearly its current length. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm back! Okay, here's all that needs to be done.

  • Remove one of the two mentions of the East-West Schism in the Middle-Ages. Preferably, I'd remove it from the first section, and write something akin to the following: 'the tensions between Rome and Constantinople increased over the following centuries, highlighting with the Photian schism in the 8th century'. Considering the information the Reformation gets, I think it would be important to at least mention the most significant quarrel between eastern and western Christendom prior to 1054. I'll add that one myself.
  • Comment It appears you have completed this! --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please add a citation/citations in the second, third and last paragraphs of the Medieval/Renaissance periods.
  • I wondered if the Counter-Reformation needs more attention, but it kind of covers it with the Early Modern Period with the mention of the Jesuits among others (I thought that folks like Teresa of Avila should get attention, but Augustine didn't, so...Never mind it) The separation of the Reformation and the Early Modern Period sort of threw me off, since the former exists within the latter.
  • Noted The history section is the most dizzying for me as well. I am uncertain how to best present it. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A citation for the last paragraph of the Early Modern Period, though that section certainly doesn't count as "Early Modern". I suggest to change the subtitle to Early Modern and Modern Periods, too.
  • Comment Based on the minor confusion you cited, I moved "Age of discovery" above the "Reformation"; slightly less jumping around the timeline now!--Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Add the link to Catholic Church and Contraception as a see also portion under the Second Vatican Council.
  • John Paul II probably needs a title change, too. Maybe Notable 20th Century figures.
  • Comment In lieu of renaming, I moved the content about Mother Teresa and the other winner to "Social Services" (where Mother Teresa was already mentioned) --Zfish118 (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Citation for the first paragraph of the twenty-first century subsection.

Okay. I'm going to give the article another re-read. There are still a few other places where citations are needed, and after I go through and add said citations for those that I can find, you'll see some paragraphs that have the 'citation needed' link, hopefully within a few hours. Hope this process hasn't been too lengthy, but this article is a big one. I'll try to find citations for those that need it for the History section, but don't wait up, since you may beat me to it. LeftAire (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You have been exceptionally prompt, given the huge size and scope of this article (I did not expect anyone to get to it for several months actually). I've been working on and off on this article for a while now, and have never seen it better. Having fresh eyes look at all the citations really helps! --Zfish118 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Zfish118 No problem! I am going to place a hold on the article within a few hours, but once I do the period given to fix issues with the article would be seven days. I need to check if anyone has responded to my question about citation usage for this article (I may have to officially request a second opinion), and there are still some unaddressed issues (among those citations). Would you be able to fix those issues within a week? This article doesn't have many other issues...LeftAire (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I have addressed the majority of you concerns, including the remaining "citation needed" tags. I also added references for the services/aid organizations, just in case :p --Zfish118 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I look forward to the remainder of your assessment! --Zfish118 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This article is almost ready for a pass. Just one more issue. The link from the citation given for this portion in the Nature of the Church -"the universal sacrament of salvation for the human race" and the "true religion"- doesn't provide the quotes given from the link given. Perhaps use the Lumen Gentium link to provide different citation of what the Catholic Church considers itself to be, or find a citation that actually states those two sources (reliable ones, of course). LeftAire (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed it! "Universal..." was originally a quote from the Catechism, but the Catechism cited two sources, and the wrong original source document was cited in the article; I put in the correct original source. "True religion" was not in either source, and I removed it as redundant. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

All right, then! It appears that everything has been handled, as I have taken care of the last bit of necessary citations. Congrats, this article has passed! Nice to see an article of this significance be recognized as one of the better articles. I don't know if you're pushing the article for a FA status, but I suggest a peer review beforehand if you decide to do so. LeftAire (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ "CoCC 291". To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a grave sin must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion. Also important for those receiving Holy Communion are a spirit of recollection and prayer, observance of the fast prescribed by the Church, and an appropriate disposition of the body (gestures and dress) as a sign of respect for Christ. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference nunsworldwide was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Category:Christian denominational families[edit]

You are invited to a discussion regarding the naming and content of category:Christian denominational families found at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_10#Category:Christian_denominational_families. --Zfish118 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


Could I ask Randykitty why, instead of responding to the reasoned arguments I have made, he/she has repeatedly and consistently ignored them - and now prevented others from editing this page? Is this not a rather blatant abuse of admin privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if your edit was reverted, proper etiquette is to then come to the talk page and discuss the desired changes. I also see no arguments from you on this talk page. Edit summaries do not count. So how about you take the opportunity to discuss it here.Farsight001 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Farsight001 has it exactly right. You made an edit that fundamentally changed the meaning of that phrase with an edit summary suggesting a strong POV. Discuss it here. If you get consensus, the edit can be restored. Until then, I'll regard attempts to restore it as vandalism. --Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good Job[edit]

It's been a few years since I edited anything on Wikipedia. I left quite disgusted over difficulties with this particular article. I see it was recently promoted to Good Article status. I just want to congratulate the editors here for persevering in their efforts to make this a decent Wikipedia page. Nice job! NancyHeise talk 01:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting such a complex topic through Wikipedia's Good Article criteria. It is fairly uncommon for such a general topic to pass. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)