Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive5

Bokenkotter excerpts

Some excerpts from Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church which has been a university textbook for decades. Regarding the Church impact upon Medieval culture and society he writes:

"Bishops, priests, monks, friars, nuns, they were by and large the most educated, the most cultivated, and the most respected members of medieval society during the period of the Church's ascendency, and they constituted a much larger percentage of the population than they do today. Their large numbers enabled the Church to dedicate itself to a wide range of social services, constituting a kind of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Church's care for the unfortunates was concentrated in its hospitals, which at the time were not restricted to care for the sick but ministered to all kinds of needy persons."

"In comparison with the Eastern Christians, whose stand against war was generally consistent, Western Christendom appears much less enlightened. The barbarian invasions and the conditions of feudal society made war a constant fact of life; ecclesiastics tried to channel this bellicose energy for the Church's own purposes. Holy war in the service of the Church was regarded as permissible and even desirable. Popes even led armies into battle and ranked the victims of a holy war as martyrs....A series of Church councils followed in France, which prescribed oaths to be taken by the nobility to limit their war-making propensities."

"There is no doubt, however, that the Crusades contributed much to the developements of the time: the rise of commerce and towns, the growing sense of nationality, the expansion of intellectual horizons, and the increase in the prestige of the papacy. But in none of these instances was the influence decisive. The taste for Eastern spices, silk, and metalware, for instance, was already stimulated by a trade that was growing independently of the Crusades; the crusaders' effect on the rise of commerce was not as crucial as is sometimes supported. Probably their most important effect was to retard the Turkish advance into the Balkans for three hundred years."

"As we can see from this brief survey, the Church's impact on medieval society was profound. In every department of life one found the Church present. Under the leadership of the Popes, the priests, monks, friars, and nuns who were the spiritual elite of medieval society labored steadily to instill faith in the illiterate masses, to give them at least a glimpse of truth and goodness beyond the grim facts of their narrowly circumscribed lives. ....And one can agree with the conclusion of a recent study by Francis Oakley, '...For whatever its barbarisms, its corruptions, its malformations, whatever its evasions and dishonesties, in the medieval church men and women still contrived, it would seem, to encounter the Gospel."

In that last paragraph, Bokenkotter is quoting Francis Oakley from his book The Medieval Experience, Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity published by University of Toronto Press. The actual quote and book are here [1] as you can see, the full statement Francis Oakley is making is that the Medieval Experience profoundly shaped our modern Western culture and the Church was the main driving force. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Papal Primacy

This is the papal primacy section that was deleted in the article trim. Vassyana mentioned it's absence in her oppose. If other editors want this in the article, I have no problem re-adding it. " Two decades later, the Council of Chalcedon solidified Roman papal primacy which added to continuing breakdown in relations between Rome and Constantinople, the see of the Eastern Church. Also sparked were the Monophysite disagreements over the precise nature of the incarnation of Jesus which led to the first of the various Oriental Orthodox Churches breaking away from the Catholic Church.]" NancyHeise ^talk 19:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman

Excerpt from Chronicle Review [2] "Some of the sharpest digs have been reserved for Ehrman, who was the first member of the National Geographic team to publish a book on Judas. Publicly Ehrman has been the most vocal in embracing Judas as hero, and he has been pilloried for it. Scholar after scholar at the Rice conference took shots at him. Turner said he didn't read Ehrman's book because he "wouldn't expect to learn anything from it."

Ehrman thinks he has been unfairly caricatured as a cheerleader for the positive Judas theory. "People like April harp on whether Judas is a good guy or not," he says. "The bulk of my essay and my book deals with other aspects." He also defends National Geographic against those who say the society's decisions, like insisting on nondisclosure agreements, were purely mercenary. "This million dollars has to come from some place," Ehrman says. "If National Geographic gets scooped, are they going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts?"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs) 03:52, October 9, 2008 (UTC)

Council of Chalcedon

Responding to Vassyana's assertions that the article text is factually incorrect with regard to the Council of Chalcedon solidifying Roman papal primacy, I am placing this quote from Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" to refute her claim. From page 91-92:

" 'And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome (Constantinople), justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her....' Pope Leo refused to accept this canon. There were several reasons for his stand (lists reasons).....Even though things were temporarily patched up, with Leo accepting a conciliatory letter from the patriarch of Constantinople, who agreed not to officially promulgate Canon 28, the misunderstanding continued to bedevil the relations between the two sees and finally played a major role in the final schism of the Middle Ages."

NancyHeise ^talk 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To substantiate Bokenkotter I also offer this excerpt from Eamon Duffy's "Saints and Sinners" found on pages 45-46 in the paperback issue of this book (the hardcover edition was used in the actual article)

"The bishops at Chalcedon, however, made no such assumption. They acknowledged the special dignity and honour of the apostolic see, but they did not therefore assume that whatever its bishop said must be true, and seemed to have believed that on this particular occasion, Peter had spoken through Leo. They had adopted his solution to the problem, therefore, not merely because it was his, but because they judged it true. To underline this, in canon 28 of the Council they restated the teaching of the Council of Constantinople that Constantinople took precedence after Rome 'because it is new Rome'. There could not have been a clearer demonstration of the gap between Eastern and Western views of the papacy, and Leo delayed his acceptance of Chalcedon for two years on the strength of it.

NancyHeise ^talk 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I cant believe this is STILL going!

The amount of laughable conflict going on at this FAC is unacceptable. Clearly, it is being made almost impossible for this article to be promoted. Applauds to NancyHeise and his constant running efforts to answer concerns, but I feel it will all become a possibly wasted effort. The article is clearly good enough, and it certainly meets all the criteria.Again, people arguing false points is just messing up the page. I also see some efforts have been made to move some discussions around, which is also good but to little avail. I would like to point out and remind people that FAC's do pass even if there are opposes given towards such; I myself have opposed many articles on grounds of good criteria but it still got promoted. I would hate to see this worthy article fail even once just because some users have beef with the Catholic Church. As a Catholic myself, I understand that some people take negatively towards the church because of issues with power, dominance, belief and other social (problems?). I hate to say it once again, but this is a large factor behind this FAC. I'm seeing people pull out the most random points so they have something to argue with against this article, yet even when it is proven wrong and resolved, new and more ridiculous points arouse. This needs to stop. As other users have said as well, this is one of the best articles on WP. I'm yet to see any article as comprehensive and well-written and sourced as this one. Since it passes all the criteria, I don't see why the FAC is being trailed so users can keep arguing insufficient points. Domiy (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Domiy, I expect the controversy directed at RCC. I don't mind it and I trust that the article will receive fair treatment from the FA director. If it meets criteria, I believe it will be promoted otherwise I would not have spent my time improving it. Many people, even several who are not Catholic, have worked together to improve the article. It has become a very ecumenical endeavor, not always unenjoyable. Be positive! NancyHeise ^talk 01:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from Froehle in response to Taam's request

I am placing the entire paragraph on European's from the book Global Catholicism by Bryan Froehle and Mary Gautier, researchers at Center for Applied Research, the institution used by major newspapers when seeking information on church statistics. Excerpt from page 129: "Europeans increasingly express no formal religious preference. This is particularly the case in the more Protestant countries of Northern Europe and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe, but it is increasing throughout the continent. These are not the so-called cafeteria Christians who pick and choose what they believe from within their tradition-rather, this is a case of larger proportions of the population no longer identifying with any formal religious tradition. In spite of these overall trends, Europe remains a particularly strong center of Catholicism, particularly as measured by the presence of Catholic institutions and personnel."

excerpt from Schreck tending to Ioannes comment

"An unfortunate result of the rift between Catholics and Protestants is the disagreement over the canon (official list of inspired writings) of the Old Testament. Catholics recognize as divinely inspired the writings included in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament that was used in the early church, known as the Septuagint. Protestants accept only the writings found in an early Hebrew version of the Bible, which did not include the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. These books are sometimes referred to by Protestants as "the Apocrypha". Many Protestants read and respect these writings, although they do not consider them divinely inspired. Catholics often refer to these books as deutero-canonical (a second canon) because they have been disputed. Even so, Catholics accept them as divinely inspired works that are fully part of the canon of the Old Testament."

from page 22 of The Essential Catholic Catechism by Dr. Alan Schreck, professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.

NancyHeise ^talk 10:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Jumbled declarations

The Oppose declarations in the FAC have become rather jumbled, with interrupted discussions, missing sigs, and some interspersed addressed issues. Restarting, as done in the past, has proven to be difficult to Opposers, as it causes them to retype everything, so I'm going to pull each original declaration out to here, and then invite Opposers to strike what has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's everything. This is not a substitute for reading the full page, rather it is intended to make it easier for declarers to locate their original text and make any strikes as appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

Image comment - I don't feel Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg is warranted per WP:NFCC#8, and thus the article fails FA criteria 3, otherwise images checkout fine. This is a hugely difficult article to meet FAC#4, because of the age and scope of the subject, dont feel down-hearted if it doent pass. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE - I don't believe that the image "conveys a message that words cannot begin to approach", and therefore I oppose promotion, failure to meet featured article criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be easy to resolve: Angr, Fasach Nua, and Elcobbola are all in agreement with respect to this image not meeting policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As it is presently tagged on WP. Since legal impediments prevent the Nazi Party from collecting its royalty cheques these days, I think the issue is whether it is tagged correctly. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There has also been some disagreement about German PD law (an area which Elcobbola seems well versed in). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana

To keep things focused, here is a specific list of points that if addressed would change my opposition to neutrality or support:

• Some mention that not all scholars agree with the version of history presented. This need not take up more than a couple of statements in the article, simply noting the existence of opposing views and citing a couple of prominent examples (such as Bauer, et al's model of extreme diversity and Ehrman, et al's "proto-orthodox" model).
• A few relevant points about the existance of other sees with exceptional authority besides Rome. I would prefer to see a specific mention of the similar authority of the Bishop of Alexandria (as affirmed by the First Council of Nicaea) and the later similar authority of the Bishop of Constantinople.
• Related to the above, I would like to see a clearer picture of how and when the Bishop of Rome established more exclusive primacy and how it relates to the schism between the (modern) Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Some information related to this point is present in the article, but the picture is rather muddled/incomplete.
• A better examination of papal infallibility and the doctrine of infallibility in general (the Pope is not the only source of infallible teachings and doctrine, which is contrary to much of the public perception of Catholicism).
• A bit more detail on the Curia. How and when were they established? What about the role they played during the era of the Papal States? How did their purpose transform with the end of their civil authority?
• In general and overall, a little more representation of the Protestant, Orthodox and secularist views. It is not necessary to bog down the article with counterpoints galore or to add such outside views willy-nilly. Instead, I am simply looking for indications to the reader that other views exist on points where there exists alternate prominent views, such as with the point about the history presented.

I hope this helps clarify my opposition and presents my concerns in a more addressable and less confrontational manner. If I can provide further clarification or there are any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Vb

• Oppose This is a very naive opposition: I am not a scholar expert in this intricated domain. Here are however my feeling after reading the lead and the first section. The lead does not read well. It is IMHO no brilliant prose but the result of many edit wars and strange compromises: For example, "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest human and visible authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[5]" seems to have been written to avoid to say that the highest authority of the Church a level below God is the Pope. Is God not human? Is God not visible? Moreover it seems the authors wanted to list all the powers of the Pope in order to say that the Pope has a limited authority. Which matters are relevant for the Church except "faith, morality and Church governance"? Could one say this in a simpler way: "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest authority after God." The first section is written in the catholic POV only. According to this article, the Church "traces its foundation to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles" and "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". Does this mean that the other scholars don't agree? If so, who are they and which are their arguments? Why are both topic "Origin" and "Mission" mixed in one section only? The question of the orgins is a question of faith and a question of historical fact which has nothing to do with the mission of the church - except if one adopt the purely naive catholic POV and declares that the mission was "founded upon Jesus' command" as if Jesus would have been able to predict the future and was therefore defined from the origin on. Vb (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Taam

• Oppose but the article is promosing if the following major issues could be reviewed:

Note 337 states “Einstein, for instance, in an article in Time, paid tribute to Pius and noted that the Church alone 'stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign.' “ But the reference doesn't check out since I can find no mention of Pius in Einsteins comments as published by Time. [3] Furthermore Einstein doesn't say its the Roman Catholic Church who “stood squarely” as is suggested by this note, its simply the Church which in the context of the article seems to be the Christian church as a whole. There has been some debate as to the apocryphal nature of the remarks attributed by Time to Einstein but there is a letter that was being auctioned recently that purports to be from Einstein to a Christian correspondent asking him to confirm if he indeed spoke the words quoted by Time and once again, if its authentic, its the Christian Church as a whole and not the Roman Catholic Church in particular that Einstein alludes, not as the article currently suggests.[4]

The body text states : ”After the war historians such as David Kertzer accused the Church of encouraging centuries of anti-semitism, and Pope Pius XII of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.[336] Prominent members of the Jewish community such as Albert Einstein contradicted the criticisms and spoke highly of Pius' efforts to protect Jews” I think this is ambiguous since Einsteins supposed comments in Time Magazine doesn't exonerate the Church for historical persecution, he only mentions what was happening in the 1930's.[5] I cannot believe there is any Jewish or Christian scholar who would deny historical oppression. After apparently dismissing any charges the article continues “Even so, in 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall that read "We're deeply saddened by the behavior of those in the course of history who have caused the children of God to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.” which makes the Pope seemly apologise for things that never happened. Compare this to what the Church says: ““Despite the Christian preaching of love for all, even for one's enemies, the prevailing mentality down the centuries penalized minorities and those who were in any way "different". Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters, and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people, led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions or attempts at forced conversions. In a large part of the "Christian" world, until the end of the 18th century, those who were not Christian did not always enjoy a fully guaranteed juridical status. Despite that fact, Jews throughout Christendom held on to their religious traditions and communal customs. They were therefore looked upon with a certain suspicion and mistrust. In times of crisis such as famine, war, pestilence or social tensions, the Jewish minority was sometimes taken as a scapegoat and became the victim of violence, looting, even massacres.”[6]. The whole section seems a gloss over, no mention of the “perfidious Jews” that formed part of the Good Friday liturgy up until the late 1950's, nothing about how Jews were made to dress differently - [7] and so on...

The article states “Prior to the start of World War II in the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI warned Catholics that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity.” The encyclical doesn't mention anti-Semitism specifically and the reference given to support the claim doesn't check out, i.e the words the article attributes to Mit brennender Sorge, and by extension to Pius XII, were in fact supposed to have been spoken by Pius XI to visiting Belgian pilgrims in the Vatican[8] which is a lot different to an encyclical broadcast to the world. On the subject of anti-semitism it is indeed true that Pius XI intended to publish an encyclical on this subject but he died and Pius XII decided not to publish it.[9]

The article says of Mit brennender Sorge “it described Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet” . The encyclical doesn't mention Hitler in particular and this assertion seems way over the top in its zeal to exonerate the Church. Common sense says that a Pope has to be very careful of every word spoken, think what happened a couple of years ago in the immediate aftermath of comments spoken by Pope Benedict. In “We Remember the Shoa” it simply states “Pope Pius XI too condemned Nazi racism in a solemn way in his Encyclical Letter Mit brennender Sorge,”[10]

In the section “Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics” it mentions the substantial increase in world wide Church membership but this seems to be misleading. The world population has risen by 69% during the period mentioned in the article whereas the Church membership has increased by 72.78% . There is also the lack of balance, typical for the article as a whole outside the beliefs section, in that there is no mention of the substantial decline in the West, by way of example UK and USA.[11]. This is a significant and should be included in the article. Would I be correct in saying that the membership figures claimed in the article count so called “cultural catholics” I.e ones who do not practice the faith but hang on to the description as an expression of group identity? I think the article would be enhanced if we know exactly what counts as a Catholic.

As for the “Cultural influence” section all I can hope for is that a Catholic scholar will appear here that you will listen to and this will will lead to its deletion or a complete rewrite, for this section detracts from the rest of the article by its broad brushstroke and exaggerated tone that is hopelessly unbalanced. The appalling use of images is particularly noteworthy. A common tactic in Catholic apologetics circles is to justify what happened to the native population of the America when Columbus arrived by referring to the human sacrifice of the Aztecs as if two wrongs make a right. But read what Columbus says of the Tainos on his first arrival. “They traded with us and gave us everything they had, with good will..they took great delight in pleasing us..They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal..Your highness may believe that in all the world there can be no better people ..They love their neighbours as themselves, and they have the sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing.” This use of such powerful imagery without proper context attempts to cast a slur over all the indigenous population of the America's whilst glossing over the cultural carnage that took place with the arrival of Columbus. I also note that it is the Catholic Church herself who keeps alive the idea that human sacrifice, I.e Calvary, is pleasing to God. You have no right to look down your noses at people who shared the same basic idea as you do now. You are using pictures and images the same way as the Nazis to demonize whole races and peoples. Imagine if someone added to this article a picture of St Faustina ,who was recently canonised, showing her vision of the reality of the Eucharist, I.e baby Jesus being ripped apart and eaten alive? How about adding a picture of Jew with the special dress they were made to wear by the Church and put it side by side with an image of the Nazis using the same technique? When the following quotation of Pope John Paul was added in order to try and balance the over the top claims made it with regard to women , culture and the rights of other peoples it was deleted: “In March 2000 Pope John Paul II prayed publicly for forgiveness for sins committed by Christians with regard to the rights of peoples, cultures and religions as well as sins against the dignity of women and the unity of the human race.”

The article mentions the persecution of the Church but fails to mention the persecution of paganism etc. In the past she has been accused of behaving inconsistently, claiming toleration and liberty for herself, but being intolerant of other religions. This was denied on the basis that they worshipped the one true God and it could not be considered persecution when acts were taken to suppress other religious traditions since "error has no rights".[12][13] I think the article must deal with this issue in order to be NPOV

A suggestion: In the section “Catholicism today” it makes mention of President Bush's remarks about Pope JP2 but I think the article would be enhanced by a reference to JP2 and the Vaticans position regarding the war in Iraq. [14].

Otherwise I think the article has the making of featured status, but at present I could not treat it even as good article no matter how superficially it conforms outwardly to wiki standards. Taam (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ioannes Pragensis

Oppose. Because of my limited time, I have seen only the first part of the article, and even if it is better than in the previous FAC (thanks to NancyHeise and other editors!), it contains too many small problems to vote otherwise:

• (The church) "is made up of one Western church (the Latin Rite) and twenty-two Eastern Catholic churches, divided into 2,782 bishoprics." - it is not clear whether the 2,782 bishoprics are the whole church or the Eastern Churches only.
• Citations of long documents (eg. Lumen Gentium) in references should contain chapters - one should be able to find the source without reading the whole document.
• "Catholic faith is summarized in the Nicene Creed and detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." - should also mention Bible & Apostolic tradition as the "primary" sources of faith according to R-C church in the intro.
• "Formal Catholic worship is ordered by the liturgy" - more often, "liturgy" is synonymous with "the formal worship"
• "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus..." - the wording of the paragraph looks a bit one-sided (WP:NPOV); there are many other scholars and theologians who believe otherwise (eg. that the establishing of papacy in its current power was a rather lengthy process), not only Duffy alone, and it should be mentioned, including their principal arguments
• "Sacred scripture or the Catholic Bible consists of the Greek version of the Old Testament—known as the Septuagint—and the 27 New Testament writings found in the Codex Vaticanus and listed in Athanasius' Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter." - not exactly true: R-C church regards the OT books from Septuagint as canonical, but does not prefer their Greek Septuagint versions as THE canonical version; it uses mainly the Neovulgata translation for its normal agenda and the Hebrew originals for scholarly purposes. Moreover the Codex Vaticanus has no special position in the definition of the R-C canon - it was created hundreds of years after the definition of the Christian NT canon. - In this regard I can only repeat what I have said in the previous FAC: the low scholarly quality of sources (Schreck in this case) leads to the low quality of the article.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Another remarks:

• "Catholic teachings have been refined and clarified by councils of the Church, convened by Church leaders, at important points throughout history" - the wording "important points" looks slightly exaggerated, some councils were held at relatively "normal" times
• "The first such council, the Council of Jerusalem, was convened by the apostles around the year 50" - the Council of Jerusalem is usually not listed as one of the Catholic Ecumenical Councils linked in the previous sentence. Moreover the word "convened" is used two times in two lines of text.
• " teaching authority of the Church, which includes infallible pronouncements by the pope,[45] pronouncements of ecumenical councils, and those of the college of bishops acting in union with the pope to define truths or to condemn interpretations of scripture believed to be false" - should be clearly stated that the teaching authority includes both "infallible" and "not-infallible" pronouncements of church leaders about faith & moral.
• "According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Jesus instituted seven sacraments and entrusted them to the Church" - almost everything in the chapter Beliefs can be "according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church" but why to stress it just here? The number 7 sacraments comes from the Middle Ages and was established by the Council of Trent as binding doctrine.
• "Through the passion of Jesus and his crucifixion, the Church teaches that all people have an opportunity for forgiveness and freedom from sin, and so can be reconciled to God." I think that the central Christian doctrine deserves more than one sentence here. At least mention the Resurrection and its meaning - it is not explained here in contast to many less important details - and the connection of the Passion and Resurrection with Baptism and Eucharist.
• "There are three states of afterlife in Catholic belief. Purgatory is a temporary..." - why the explanation starts with the less important, temporary state? It should start with heaven as the principal goal of Catholics, and then discuss the remaining two states.
• "An alternate or extraordinary form of Mass, called the Tridentine Mass, is celebrated primarily in Latin..." - many parts of the article are written mainly from the today's perspective, although the R-C Church has a long history. It is especially clear here: If we mention the Tridentine Rite, then we should start with the information that it was the standard Latin rite for centuries. Its very limited use today is hardly worth to mention.
• "(Tridentine Rite) reaffirms that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus' death as the one he suffered on Calvary, contrary to Protestant belief" - is it really the single most important thing on the Tridentine Rite?
• "These dogmas, focus of Roman Catholic Mariology, are considered infallible." - Are there any "fallible" dogmas in the R-C Church?
• There is a well-developed anthropologic and sociologic literature about the folk R-C spirituality (pilgrimages, cult of Mary, prayers...) and its historical development, should be cited and considered.
• "The sacrament of Matrimony in the Latin rite is the only sacrament not conferred by a priest" - perhaps "under normal circumstances" should be added; exceptionally laypersons may also baptize; and "priest" should be replaced by "ordained person", because the Holy Orders are also not conferred by priest.
• "may enter the cloistered consecrated life either as monks or nuns." - why "either"? Would not be better "may enter the cloistered consecrated life as monks or nuns"?
• "The majority of those wishing to enter the consecrated life..." - is there any statistics proving that they are really the majority? Cite it please.
• "or those never baptized may be received by participating in a formation program" - those never baptized may be received only by being baptized (of course after a formation program in most cases)
• "by condemning female infanticide (as well as all other forms)" - not clear what are the all other forms
• "The Church has frequently been criticized for the house arrest of Galileo" - there are many other cases of persecuted and even killed thinkers which should be mentioned (Hypatia of Alexandria, Jan Hus, Giordano Bruno). Generally the chapter sounds too positive - what about the pogroms against Jews in Catholic Europe for example, the first predecessors of the later Nazi atrocities?
• " the concept of the primacy of the Roman bishop over other churches" - this is the hard-core R-C reading of the history. The Orthodox reading says that it was the primacy of the Roman bishop between other churches, not over them. As far as I know, modern historians think that the Orthodox reading is more close to the historical reality of the first centuries. The primacy over other (Western) churches was fully developed after the Great Schism, that is 1000 years later.
• "in 391 this Biblical canon was translated into the common language of Latin creating the Vulgate" - not exact; the translation/revision work took more than 20 years to Jerome, and there existed older translations before Vulgate.
• Chapter Early Middle Ages: The rise of Islam and the loses in Africa and Near East should be at least briefly mentioned - it is too important to drop.
• Eastern Europe and its evangelization both peaceful (Saints Cyril and Methodius) and warlike (Charlemagne, crusades against "pagans") should be mentioned
• "theologians such as Thomas Aquinas worked at these universities and his Summa Theologica was" - the sentence looks grammatically wrong to me; the subject of the first part are theologians, therefore the second part should have "Aquinas'" instead of "his" (sorry if I am wrong here, my knowledge of English is not perfect).
• "to reside under French influence in the fortified city of Avignon" - no need to stress the fortification, most of medieval cities were fortified.
• "These challenges developed into the Protestant Reformation" - the sentence should add a short description what was the Protestant Reformation - what demanded Luther, what was the response of Rome, how the schizm developed at its beginnings - otherwise the uneducated reader will not understand the following text.
• Hussites deserve to be shortly mentioned as foreruners of Reformation
• St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre should appear briefly
• Counter-Reformation: it was not only cultural and ecclesiastical movement, it meant also a state-sponsored persecution of non-Catholics in the Habsburg domain; should be mentioned perhaps including its notable victims (John Amos Comenius...)
• "resulted in a small breakaway movement called the Old Catholic Church" - small perhaps compared to the whole church, but nevertheless relatively big and influential in Germany of these days; "breakaway" from the Roman perspective, but traditionalist Catholic from their own perspective; is there a more neutral wording possible?
• Chapter Industrial age: Hugh McLeod's book on Secularisation in Western Europe, 1848-1914 is the classic about the period's religious development, would be nice to cite it
• "The records of Dachau concentration camp alone" - bad link - points to the city, not to the concentration camp.
• "Even though some priests collaborated with the regime" - even some laypersons and bishops collaborated. Should be "some Catholics collaborated".
• Chapter Second Vatican Council discusses many things beyond the Council - the name should be expanded
• The paragraph starting with "Major lawsuits emerged in 2001..." looks too lenghty and too US-centric
• The part starting with "On his 2008 visit to the United States..." - the same problem
• "Following the controversy over his Regensburg address," - it should briefly explain why is the address controversial
• The chapter titled "Catholicism today" should change its title to "Pope Benedict today" :-) (or it should really speak about its theme, which is what I would prefer)

Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Savidan comments

• Comment - I continue to have the same concerns that I have expressed in previous FACs and on the article's talk page before the current push for FA status. (1) the temporal and geographic variation in Catholic beliefs, practices, and influence is largely elided and overlooked; (2) the history section of the article is severely lacking in terms of key trends such as (a) the centralization of papal authority and the development of the church as a global institution rather than an Italian or European one, or (b) the growth and development of the church hierarchy, in particular the College of Cardinals, and the various economic and political drivers associated with it, and (3) the article is still largely written from the perspective of a Catholic looking out on the world, hence the overemphasis of doctrine and social teaching, and the neglect of the vast economic, political, cultural influence of the church. In this area, the article has doubtlessly improved since the first FAC, but is still far off the mark. Where such issues are not neglected, they are treated from a comically one-sided perspective. For example, the article cherry-picks in attributing the elimination of human sacrifice and other practices to the church rather than delivering any meaningful or nuanced analysis of the church's complicated role in colonization, the development of European identity, or relations with other religions. Finally, with relation to the modern church, it is clear that the article gives undo emphasis both to points of view and to subject matter. The discussion of PPXII and the image in particular (which I agree does not meet the fair use policies) is essentially a rebuttal to one specific criticism of Pope Pius XII rather than a true top-level summary of his significance as a pontiff. Again I believe that this article has improved, and that the content and effort that has gone into it could have spawned a dozen featured articles on Catholicism, but I am unready at this point to support this article, believing that the standard should be higher for more important topics. My concerns about summary style in previous nominations have been remedied in many respects, but I believe that the use of summary style would need further improvement if the current content were written from a more balanced perspective with reference to point-of-view, global coverage, and intertemporal variation. Savidan 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)