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

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)

Requirements for selection to papacy?

I undid this edit that had changed the "Papacy and Roman Curia" section to indicate that one of the requirements to become Pope was to be unmarried. To my knowledge, there are no explicit prohibitions preventing a married Catholic male from being selected as Pope. There are married Catholic priests (former Episcopals, Melkites, Maronites) who could be ordained Bishops and selected as Cardinals (thereby making their selection a great deal more probable than that of your everyday Catholic layman). WikiCatholicIndiana has since reverted my edit. Please provide a reliable source to support the assertion that there is a requirement for a Catholic male to be unmarried to assume the office of Pope.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the section back to its original (pre-edit) wording pending outcome of discussion here.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 06:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is factually true that there is no explicit prohibition against a lay male Roman Catholic being elected as Pope (who would obviously need to be ordained as a bishop). Theoretically a married man, lay or ordained, could probably also be elected Pope with a dispensation from the current celibacy rules which apply to bishops. But who would have authority to grant such a dispensation? Afterwriting (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the current trend of only electing Cardinals to the office, I suspect the only realistic chance would be to have a married priest who received a dispensation from the sitting Pope to be ordained a bishop, then named a Cardinal prior to that Pope's death. There is precedent for a married Pope – eleven of the early Popes were married prior to their election and remained so while in office. The practice of celibacy for the clergy is also not considered infallible dogma (hence, the allowance for priests who converted after marriage). I agree that it is an extremely remote possibility and very unlikely to happen, but I have not yet been able to locate any explicit prohibition in Canon Law or in the Apostolic Constitutions. The requirements for selection are fairly vague and mostly entail being in good standing with the Church.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 07:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bishop of Rome is a Latin-rite bishop. For suitability, canon law now requires that the person chosen to become a Latin-rite bishop be:

1. outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him suitable to fulfill the office in question;
2. of good reputation;
3. at least 35 years old;
4. ordained to the presbyterate for at least 5 years;
5. in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.

If one were to ignore canon law, the person elected would not even have to be a Christian (Ambrose was not a Christian when elected Bishop of Milan). There are even some who claim that the person elected would not have to be male, in spite of the Holy See's declaration that this is not a mere matter of canon law.

The Latin conditions are also required by Eastern Catholic canon law, which adds an explicit exclusion from the episcopate of married men, whom it admits to the presbyterate (see canon 180). Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

While I don't believe that the specific requirements for Papal election directly reference the above (as the ordination as Bishop of Rome is incidental to the election), it makes sense that the Conclave would attempt to follow these requirements as closely as possible. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 09:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, what they are electing is the Bishop of Rome, someone who thereupon is called Pope, Supreme Pontiff etc. etc. because he is Bishop of Rome. It is these titles that are incidental. And that one of the conditions for becoming a bishop in the Catholic Church, East or West, is to be unmarried is shown also by the rules about the personal ordinariates for former Anglicans, whose ordinary can be a bishop only if unmarried: "Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches" (Note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.) There seems to be a misunderstanding here that the person elected must be a cardinal: the procedure for the conclave to follow if they elect someone else is expressly indicated in the rules. And the connection of cardinalate and episcopate is not even half a century old; indeed if you went back a full century, cardinals did not even have to be priests: there were so-called lay cardinals, who not only could be married men but could even marry. Esoglou (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. Canon 332 specifically states, "The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately." This to me seems to indicate that the election of the pontiff is separate and distinct from the ordinary selection of bishops, as he is either already a bishop or is immediately ordained a bishop due to his election as the pontiff, not declared the Pope due to his election as bishop.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And the issue re: cardinals is not a misunderstanding regarding the requirements; it is simply a reflection of the recent trend of selecting cardinals.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course the selection of a bishop occurs not after but before his consecration. For most, but not all, Latin-rite bishops the appointment is done by the reigning pope, but the Bishop of Rome is not the only bishop who is elected by a group such as the college of cardinals or a cathedral chapter. Canon 332 says quite clearly that the Roman Pontiff - in ecclesiastical terminology "pontiff" means "bishop", and "Roman Pontiff" means "Bishop of Rome" - obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. If he is already a bishop, he becomes Bishop of Rome immediately; but if he is not already a bishop, he obtains full and supreme power in the Church only on being consecrated bishop, Bishop of Rome. The declaration "Habemus Papam" can be made only after he has become Bishop of Rome. That is why the consecration, if necessary, must be done first, within the conclave. Only after this is the announcement made: "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum ..."

Of course rules can be changed, but it is enough to indicate what the present rules are, without delving into details of past rules and, most certainly, without speculating about possible, probable or improbable future changes. Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

This article wouldn't be complete without a section on criticism because it's a part of Catholic Church history. Almost all the organizations, any religious or spiritual movement has had to face criticism. This is not due to the organization itself but due to members more or less misguided by their own "good" intentions. So we have to insert this section (and please don't remove it). To have a link to another article (the "Criticism of Christianity" page) it's not sufficent to grant the NPOV: the visibility of a "small link" is not the same of a section quoted on an index (we have to consider that we are speaking abouth the Catholic Church and not of the Christian religion in general so the existing ling seems inapropriate).--Cornelius383 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Contemporary Issues section I think serves as a fairly suitable introduction to the Church's controversial matters. The scope and breadth of the criticism of the Roman Catholic Church is quite extensive and it would be rather cumbersome to attempt to fit the entirety of it into this article. Doing so would no doubt lead to undue weight given the plethora of material to discuss. But more to the point, I don't believe this change is necessary given that the article adheres to Wikipedia's policy on criticism-related material: while integrating criticism into a primary article itself is the most desirable option, for certain topics (namely religion, politics and such), it would best serve the reader to have a separate article addressing the controversial points. Sixteen85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

The article is already far too long and there is already a Criticism of the Catholic Church article which is linked from the contemporary issues section. This is adequate in my opinion. Anglicanus (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not in any way disparaging you, but I DO NOT understand why hateful people like yourself insist on putting the criticism of the Roman Catholic Church on the intro page. Our edits and peer review always come under academic scrutiny and so should yours.

Wikipedia has already granted an article on the Criticism of the Catholic Church and as said by another editor, Anglicanus, this is MORE than Enough to adequately sustain your disdain and criticism for the Pope and the Church. You are most welcome to bring any of your issues there----and not add any more to this article, which is already too long by regular Wikipedia standard. Give your anger to God. WOW. LoveforMary (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary

Preceding "hateful people like yourself" with "This is not in any way disparaging you" doesn't make it any less a personal attack. Please keep it civil. This discussion was invective-free until you posted, and that sort of rhetoric does no favors to the article, to the editors who work on it, or to Catholicism. Cheers.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Cjmclark reverted an anon IP's edit with this edit and justified it in the edit summary by saying that he was restoring text agreed upon by consensus. I know this is a sensitive subject but I must have missed the consensus that agreed upon the use of "Roman Catholic Church" in the text of the article. A couple of years ago, a number of editors were involved in a mediation which reached a consensus that this article would be titled Catholic Church and that the lead sentence would say "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church". I have no recollection of a subsequent consensus to use the name "Roman Catholic Church" in other parts of the article. However, since I don't track everything that has been discussed on this Talk Page, it's possible that there was a discussion about this that I simply missed. If that is the case, please point me to the discussion so I can come up to speed. Otherwise, I would like to have this article use "Catholic Church" throughout with the exception of the lead sentence which should include the phrase "also known as the Roman Catholic Church" according to the consensus reached by a year-long mediation. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is my fault for reverting a couple of things in one go. The "wording achieved by consensus" to which I referred was actually regarding the sentence about the Pope as the successor of St. Peter. The reverts to "Roman Catholic" were just reverting sloppy edits back to the last stable wording. If a consensus is developed here to use "Catholic Church" everywhere but the AKA statement, that's fine by me.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections from other editors, I will convert all references to "the Roman Catholic Church" to "the Catholic Church" in all sentences except the lead sentence. I believe this reflects a longstanding consensus going back at least 5-6 years ago (i.e. even before the mediation mentioned above). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because I was at amazon 'look inside'- ing on Paul Johnson's 'a histoy of xty' , I searched 'Roman Catholicism' - p.284 for eg. " in some ways luther, as they appreciated, was more Catholic than many of his Roman Catholic opponents.." why is the term RC anathematised at the wp article. i don't understand. Sayerslle (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. It's not "anathematized"; it's just the most common name for the organization. Achowat (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to re-open the discussion but, in brief, the argument is that the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome uses both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to itself. There are sources that assert that "Catholic Church" is the proper name of the church but despite the credentials of those making the assertion, they remain opinions, not official pronouncements from the church. After a long mediation, it was determined that it was not actually possible to determine if the church had a single, official name. However, it was possible to ascertain that the church used both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to itself in official contexts (as well as other names such as "Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church"). It was agreed that this article would be titled "Catholic Church" and that "Catholic Church" would appear first in the lead sentence with the added phrase "also known as Roman Catholic Church". The goal is certainly not to "anathematise" the term "Roman Catholic Church", far from it. However, unless we want to take the time in the article to explain to the reader that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" refer to the same thing, it is far simpler to just maintain consistency by using "Catholic Church" throughout the article. Actually, there was an attempt to propagate this approach to all articles in Wikipedia but there were some hiccups along the way and so there is probably no uniform approach across Wikipedia. I forget the details of the hiccups but I'm sure we could dig them up if you are really interested.

If you really want to delve into this question further, you might wish to start with User:Pseudo-Richard/Names of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the proceedings of the mediation were deleted because someone threatened to use those proceedings as the basis of an ARBCOM case and mediation rules require deletion of the mediation page if any such attempt is made.

Trust me, you'd rather chew your left arm off than get into a debate on this. Every time I look at my left arm, I regret not having chewed it off instead of getting involved in the mediation.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I'll look at the article - so 107ad is first mention of Catholic Church, Ignatius of Antioch, - , I want to find first use of RC Church and such - i'll read further in your article - it's obviously not just used by those seeking to denigrate or demote the Church in some way though, is it , if Paul Johnson uses it without flinching. Next time its in the news I'll listen out for what the BBC uses, RCC or CC Sayerslle (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The mediation was "done in a corner", as someone who was unhappy with the procedure described it. When a small group of Wikipedians decided to impliment the name change to Catholic Church the level of disagreement was such that one of the advocates for the name to be changed to "Catholic Church" took it to Arbcom in order to silence the dissenters.[1] Meanwhile others who were sympathetic to his pov proceeeded to launch an attack on the Wikipedia policy pages in order to make it "Law" that their preferred name change stuck even if it meant opening the door to all sorts of abuses by pov single interest groups. Arbcom was presented with an extensive list of Encyclopedic/Dictionary type reference works that showed conclusively that Roman Catholic Church or variant was by far the preferred named used by them.[2] The person who first put the case to Arbcom subsequently withdrew the case.[3] Yt95 (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

I have twice reverted (here and here) the addition of a WP:CLARIFY tag by User:Sayerslle to the third sentence in the lede ("The Roman Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation.") due to their belief that a more scholarly source for the statement is required. My reasoning is that the WP:CLARIFY tag is used when clarification of the sentence content is requested, not a citation. Is there a contention that the Church did not, in fact, play a prominent role in the history of Western civilization? And if not, does this sentence require a citation per WP:CITELEAD?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 09:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Every ref in the lead is to what I would call croyant/CC sources btw. Simone Weil wrote this : 'the Church in the thirteenth century had Christ; but it also had the Inquisition.' imo the sentence in the lead is slanted, and is supported by a crappy ref. from a publisher with an agenda. if as you assert the sentence is simply a statement of what is universally acknowledged, finding a better ref should be easy enough. Sayerslle (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things. First of all, the lede is way overcited, despite the guidance of WP:CITELEAD, but we've seemingly accepted that as a price of the "controversial" nature of the topic.

That said, let's take a look at the sentence in question. The first part — "The Roman Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world" — is, I believe, uncontested as a matter of pure chronology and should not require citation. The second portion — "and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilisation (now "powers" as of your last edit)." — is also fairly innocuous ("prominent" does not mean good; it applies equally to fame or notoriety). The Inquisition, while now popularly viewed as a "bad" act, was a prominent one nonetheless. Hence, I don't think the sentence is particularly contentious, nor do I think it requires elaboration or citation. But, as I said, we've defaulted to trying to cite everything where possible on the off chance that someone might contest it.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 10:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The crappy POV source from Thomas Woods has been johnbodded back. This is a crappy reference imo. surely better academic historian refs are available - if this is all you've got fom a right wing ideologue its symptomatic of the editors who control the article. Sayerslle (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have left it if your phrasing of "...has played a prominent role in the history of Western powers" was not so maladroit and, er, crappy. I'm pretty certain the change in phrasing owed nothing to what you found in Paul Johnson! Is he the "right wing ideologue" you mean? Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the right wing ideologue is Woods - I just looked inside at amazon at the paul johnson book and searched the term 'Western civilization' and it returned a few mentions; i think it did mention power too, - any old thing is better ref than the tea party-ish bloke imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone actually contending with the factual accuracy of the statement "The Catholic Church is really old and had a major effect on shaping the Western World"? WP:V says we need an inline citation for "Anything challenged or likely to be challenged". I mean this ernestly, is there anyone who actually challenges the veracity of the two points of the sentence? Absent that, I think that any citation is inappropriate. Elizabeth II provides no source for her being the Queen of the United Kingdom, because no one would even conceive doubting that. I think we're in that territory now. Achowat (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the point that I was trying to make. The actions taken by the Church over the last 2000 years, both good and ill, helped shape Western civilization. I don't think this is (or should be) in dispute.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)