Talk:Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Catholic Church was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Toolbox

Social teaching[edit]

The enumeration of these seemed too much for the main article:

The Church enumerates "corporal works of mercy" and "spiritual works of mercy" as follows:[1]

Corporal Works of Mercy Spiritual Works of Mercy
1. To feed the hungry. 1. To instruct the ignorant.
2. To give drink to the thirsty. 2. To counsel the doubtful
3. To clothe the naked. 3. To admonish sinners.
4. To harbour the harbourless (shelter the homeless). 4. To bear wrongs patiently.
5. To visit the sick. 5. To forgive offences willingly.
6. To ransom the captive. 6. To comfort the afflicted.
7. To bury the dead. 7. To pray for both the living and the dead.

Talk page references[edit]

  1. ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy". Newadvent.org. 1 October 1911. Retrieved 2012-08-17. 

Faith (rather than reason)[edit]

Believing something by faith does not exclude reason and we are exhored not to abandon that very reason by the Catholic Church. The assertion is most definitely not in any cited source, is not in any accurate source, and has no place in the lede section. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what wording is concerning you. The word "reason" does not exist in the lead. No comparison of faith and reason is made. I cannot see any assertion that faith excludes reason. Personally, I think it does, but it's not necessary to say so in the articles on every religion, but that's a different discussion, so there's no need to say it in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
See the addition made by this edit which was the second time the wording was inserted in the lede. I have removed it since then. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it! Perhaps you should be more careful coming here and complaining about something that ISN'T in the article, without explaining the situation a bit better. Oh well, I won't fight your removal of the comment, but as I say, surely faith and reason are somewhat different things. On some levels they are, virtually by definition, mutually exclusive. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're really interested in the feelings of the Church in this matter, I'd suggest reading the theological greats, starting with Thomas Aquinas. None of them would agree that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Elizium23 (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
What's the point of referring me to the thoughts of a man of absolute faith on how rational faith is? You need to also look at the thoughts of men (and women) of reason who reject faith entirely. (Why, oh why, do religious people come here trying to convince us all that their faith is rational? Please find a more appropriate forum. And, before any of the haters start attacking me here, please note that at no stage have I condemned faith.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This conversation has veered from the subject matter and become far too personal, so I shall be exiting here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Having and expressing a view that is different from yours is not a personal matter in any way at all. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The topic is that the church does not teach faith and reason to be mutually exclusive, which was misrepresented in the article. The writings of Saint Thomas are a source for the factual claim that the church teaches their compatibility, not necessarily the accuracy of the church's teaching. Discussing or defending personal beliefs or interpretations is inappropriate for the talk page. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

John Paul II's Encyclical Fides et Ratio is an excellent resource if someone is interested in this topic. HiLo, "religious" people are not here to convince you or anyone else of anything. Should an editor be here it is because they are interested in making the article here. I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask why do you always try to convince us that we are not rational in our beliefs? The shoes easily fits the other foot also. --StormRider 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What? That makes little sense. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Canon (Doctrine section)[edit]

Perhaps a bit more clarity and context regarding the acceptance of the New Testament canon east and west is needed. I added a footnote explaining Luther's dispute, but I am uncertain about the only some "place them at three different status levels". There is no discussion as to what these levels are or why it there is any dispute. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex abuse crisis in lead section[edit]

I recently reverted a series of edits from the article's lead section that misrepresented the sexual abuse scandal. Firstly, every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies; this alone is not notable. What is notable about the church's scandal is that it grossly mishandled a significant number of abuse incidents and accusations. The lead should accurately reflect this. There used to be a neutrally phrased reference to the scandal in the lead developed through consensus. This should be restored. I am editing on my phone and cannot do this right now. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the edits inappropriately used statistics presumably for clergy as a whole, and misrepresented them as applying to the more limited subset of clergy within the hierarchy, which is not necessarily the case. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have twice commented here, and twice Zfish118 has deleted my comment without explanation, discussion or an Edit summary. That is bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I also posted on this user's Talk page. He has deleted my comment there without response or Edit smmary. Clearly this editor does not actually want discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll restore your comment, below--but you should really consider striking the personal accusation. Zfish118, do not remove valid talk posts again. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What's this "every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies"? First, that's patently wrong, and secondly, the issue with the Catholic Church is that it hid and protected the perpetrators for decades. To almost everyone outside the church today, and to many within, the sexual abuse issue is currently the most notable one about the church. (Personal attack removed) HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I cannot be certain what caused offence here because communication has been appalling. My posts have now three times been deleted without discussion, without explanation, and without Edit summaries. One post has now been restored here, and now someone has deleted part of. I'll guess that part is what upset some people. Maybe Zfish118 isn't an apologist for the church. I don't know. And note that again I have used the word "maybe". But I will apologise for that suggestion. However, now let me put my perspective. I teach in a Catholic school. The part of the church that runs my school has openly conceded that sexual abuse occurred in the past, apologised for it, and promised to do all it can to repair as much of the damage as possible. It has not said "It was OK because there are paedophiles elsewhere." That is a copout. And I will say it again, people who take that line do seem like they are trying to excuse appalling behaviour. As a teacher, when I criticise a student for unacceptable behaviour, the response is sometimes "But he did it too", while pointing at another student. I think we all know that's not going to work. As for Zfish118 telling us that all other organisations contain paedophiles, that's clearly nonsense, and insulting in itself. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
First, thank you for finally indicating why you are so unusually interested in Catholicism. FWIW, at least regarding the US, it might be of interest to you that studies have indicated US teachers are worse abusers than US priests. Apparently, regular contact with teenagers and such in some sort of supervisory role increases the incidence generally. The comment also indicates that WP:POV might be an issue here, as criticizing an employer one is unhappy with can cause concerns of bias as well. You may well,through no fault of your own, be well too close to this topic.
Say what you will about me personally, but the Britannica article on the Catholic Church has more works in its bibliography relating specifically to the RCC in England than for the entire Southern Hemisphere combined, which I believe raises questions about whether the article has a European bias. I can and will check other good recent reference sources on the topic in the next week or so to help us determine relative weigt in the main article, and I encourage others to do the same.
Also, at request, I would be more than willing at request look for and forward any sources I can find on Catholic sex abuse, andnote there is no way I would know, if I were forwarding to a throwaway account. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Gee you're quick at jumping to conclusions JC. My current employment began less than six months ago. My interest in religion began over half a century ago. Please go away and make a new set of assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You are of oourse obviously right. None of the qualification you added was even remotely even implied in your comment above. I clearly shoud apologize for making the irrational and apparently unjustifiable assumption that just about any person reading your comment would make and I guess I should apologize for not assuming that what seemed to be a straightforward statement from you. actually was one. My profoundest apologies for assuming you would ever make a fully honest and straightforward statement. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
John Carter, there are many things about me you don't know, just as there's an awful lot about you that I don't know. That's as it should be. I simply expanded one more piece of knowledge about me above to explain why I have good knowledge of what one part of the Catholic Church in one part of the world is doing. Now, let's get back to the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It is my firm belief that I should be able to contribute to an online encyclopedia without having my character impugned. Since your opening response to my post contained a personal attack, hinting ("might") at conclusion with vial cover ups, I considered the entire post to be abusive. I immediately deleted it and privately reported it to several admins to be removed. I then attempted to delete the entire section, since you seemed committed to reposting your attack, and I did not wish to disrupt the page. I had hoped administrative intervention would be quicker.

My entire post was germane to the content I removed. The content was a babbling of statistics, comparing the rate of pedophilia among clergy to rate of the general population. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is the church's failure to appropriately respond to incidents and accusations of abuse. I personally added the section regarding sexual abuse of minors to the Catholic Church article, and every few months find myself reverting edits that try to hide this unfortunate and disgusting chapter in church history. I want the abuse of minors to stop, in the Catholic Church, in the public schools, in private families, everywhere, and to imply that I "might" wish to cover it up is an abusive and spurious accusation.

User:HiLo48, you appear to have a bad tendency to respond without understanding the issue being discussed. In the section above, you expressed frustration at another poster because he was commenting on content that was not in the lead; content that the user had just deleted. Even here, you are feuding with other authors. In my first post in this section, I explicitly stated that I had just removed content, but you still did not check which content was removed before responding. Instead, you choose to post a personal attack, not in the heat of a contentious discussion, but as the first response. Wikipedia generally requires an assumption of good faith, but when your style is consistently provocative, this assumption simply cannot be made. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)