Talk:Catholic Church

largest and oldest

Someone inserted "and oldest" into the lead where it talks about the Church being the largest Christian denomination. I removed this because we have to have a source that says this and because it is something that probably needs to be discussed before insertion. NancyHeise ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of reference another Wikipedia page states that: The History of the Catholic Church is traced by the Church back to apostolic times and thus covers a period of nearly 2,000 years, There is no denomination older than 1100 years. We can use this reference: August Franzen, Kleine Kirchengeschichte Neubearbeitung, Herder,Freiburg,1988, p.11. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from other more substantial issues with your addition of "and oldest", you must use English language sources in English language articles. Also, since the Roman Catholic Church asserts that it manifests the fullness of the historical continuation of "the church" as founded by Christ - an assertion already commented on in the article - the addition of "and oldest" is quite meaningless to Roman Catholics and contentiously POV to many others. The article is already highly overloaded with contentious POV claims and assertions. Afterwriting (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's no rule against foreign refs, though English ones are obviously preferred. Your other point is more important. The Orthodox churches would obviously dispute Rome's claim to be the oldest, so asserting it as fact in the article would obviously violate NPOV. Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I double-checked and you are right about the use of non-English sources. They are not, however, advisable due to the difficulties in checking them. Your point about the Orthodox churches is important as they have generally viewed the Roman Catholic Church as schismatic and heretical - especially, at least, until more recent and ecumenical times. Their viewpoint cannot be ignored. Afterwriting (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an argument could be made that the Catholic Church doesn't claim to be the only oldest Christian church. Many Catholic sources will confirm that the Orthodox faith also has "apostolic succession" and will maintain that the two churches were officially one until 1054. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BaronGrackle, this is the Catholic Church viewpoint which sees the Eastern Orthodox as part of the whole church. Pope John Paul II called them the other lung. They are considered an apostolic church by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is viewed as an apostolic church by the Eastern Orthodox. They respect that the primacy given to the pope was one of honor. NancyHeise ^talk 16:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So... "one of the oldest..." or perhaps "one of the original..." with a Note explaining the existence of other churches claiming descent from an apostolic church? Obviously, the Eastern Orthodox make this claim. Saint Thomas Christians also make this claim although there is an assertion that secular historians believe that the Thomas who brought them Christianity was a different Thomas.

Richard, you forgot to sign your post above this one. Yes I agree, maybe we can say "one of the oldest" with a note attached. I am OK with that and I think it would make the article more accurate and informative. NancyHeise ^talk 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't entirely correct to claim that the Orthodox view the Roman Catholic Church as a valid apostolic church - or even as a "church" at all in the most strict sense. Many Orthodox don't even recognise RC baptisms. The position of the Orthodox on Roman Catholicism and other churches is complex and not at all consistent so it is important to not generalise too much about their attitudes to such issues. Afterwriting (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved section on RCC and POV

The following section has been cut and pasted from my talk page, it belongs here: Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC and POV

I think the main problem with the RCC page is that inevitably the editors who contribute to it are practising Catholics who not only are (understandably) unable to write from a NPOV as required by Wikipedia but see it as their role to defend, excuse and deflect criticsm from the RCC. To go through my rv edits:

1. I think it is OK to say the RCC believes itself to be the continuation of the church founded by Jesus. To say that view is shared by 'many' rather than 'some' historians' is not OK for two reasons. Firstly, how do you quantify 'many': ten out of twenty, fifty out of a hundred? Secondly, there is no consensus amongst historians that Jesus existed as a human being (as opposed to Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln). A historian who asserts that he did is speaking from religious conviction not contemporary evidence.

2. The section on the twentieth century is particularly unbalanced (although the ones on the Middle Ages and European conquest of South America also go out of their way to put the Church in a favourable light). I have no problem with describing the actions of left-wing movements and the regimes in Eastern Europe against the RCC but that should be balanced by a description of the role the Church played in supporting military/fascist regimes in Spain, South America etc.

The use of and captioning of the photograph of the concentration camp being liberated is particularly unbalanced. Why a organisation that lost some two thousand members - as opposed to six million Jews - should seek to present itself as a major victim of the Nazis is beyond me. It is also complicated by the role of the Catholic Centre Party in assisting the Nazis' rise to power in 1933.

3. The sex abuse scandal section is riddled with POV statements that try to put the best case for the Church. The idea that people in the past regarded psychiatric counselling as an suitable alternative to informing the police in cases of child sex abuse is a myth only held by the RCC. Then there is the blurring of homosexuality with paedophilia. Finally, the (from what I can see rather whacky, right-wing commentator) on whose slim shoulders is rested the defence that other institutions are also guilty of turning a blind eye to abuse. I've always found that an odd response to the revelation that the RCC had been engaged in decades-long, systematic abuse of thousands of children: 'Other people did it as well as us'.

4. WYD: 'popular' is subjective, unreferenced and clearly POV.

Ask yourself a simple question: would sometime reading the article as it now stands think it was an objective, encyclopaedic article or one written by adherents of the organisation being described? I think if you're honest, you have to admit it's the latter.Haldraper (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, I'll answer your comments one by one:

• The main contributors to the RCC page are not all Catholics. This was identified in one of our FAC attempts where it turned out that a fair number of contributors are Anglican or of no religious affiliation. There were only three or four known Catholics contributing out of a total of about 20, most of whom identifies as non-Catholic so claims of POV are difficult for many editors to digest here.
• There are virtually no scholarly sources that say Jesus is not a person who actually existed. This is a WP:fringe view wholly unsupported by WP:reliable sources. Use of the word "many" is necessary because the sources used to support the word suggest that "many" historians means including all those throughout history who have held the position that Jesus founded the Church. This comes from our very mainstream Nat. Geographic source as well as the very respected mainstream Haase source, both of which are the products of "many" scholars.
• The Church did not support regimes - individual Catholics supported regimes. The scholarly sources do not speak of any official documents promulgated by the Church in support of regimes. We did include the mention of the one very forceful document condemning Nazism, Mit Brennender Sorge because it constituted the beginning of a wave of persecutions against the Church by the Nazis and because it was so well covered by various Catholic and non-Catholic scholarly sources.
• The picture of the concentration camp was approved at the last peer review as a representative example of the fact that the Church suffered too. It is not POV to include it, it is POV to not include it. The Catholic Centre Party is not part of the Roman Catholic Church organization.
• Sex scandal paragraph was discussed and agreed over several months by many editors. Omission of any sentence deletes relevent referenced and important facts concerning the issue. We may not like information in an article but sometimes it has to be there to tell the whole story from both sides. Here in the US, we have almost weekly cases of sexual abuse of children by public school teachers while we don't see any priest sex abuse cases anymore. The US Dept. of Education issued a report showing that the problem is "10 times worse" in US Pubic Schools than what existed in the Catholic schools. [1] [2] [3] This information is not in our little paragraph even though we have three very prominent references that discuss it. I see any foundation to the charges of POV here. If we wanted to make a POV article, we would certainly have given that information prominence but we didn't.
• WYD is popular, referenced and relevent to Catholicism today. It is an event that takes place every few years and attracts as many people as an Olympic event. It is something that cities have to plan for years in advance to prepare for - not sure how this does not equate to "popular" in your view. NancyHeise ^talk 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree for the most part with Nancy, although acknowledge there is always room for editorial discretion. For example, calling WYD popular is certainly factually accurate and presumably easily sourceable, but one may reasonably point out that "popular" has connotations which may not be ideal to have in an encyclopedic article, and suggest alternatives such as "well attended", or others.

I would encourage the original poster to read the archived discussions about the above topics and recognize that they have not been the first good faith editor to discover that the some public perceptions of this institution and the perception by the totality of reliable sources are often quite discordant. I am sure they will not be the last either. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Baccyak, yes, many people have been surprised to find that scholars actually say what they say about the Church. I have often wondered where all the anti-Catholic POV comes from - certainly not from scholars! : ) Also, I noticed that someone eliminated "popular" from the WYD mention and I have not readded it. I don't care if it is in there, World Youth Day is wikilinked and the fact is made clear on that article's lead section. Its fine with me. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Three quick points:

1. of course there are no scholarly references that disprove the existence of Jesus. How do you disprove the existence of something? Jesus, God, leprechauns? They are all theoretical possibilities but to assert their existence requires evidence.

2. the RCC never supported right-wing dictatorships just individual Catholics? How about the Concordat_of_1953?

3. I think it is offensive and unsupported to claim that it was accepted practice in the past not to report child sex offenders to the police but refer them for counselling instead and that homosexual men are more likely to engage in such activity.

On the prevalence of abuse in US schools, it seems to me beside the point and smacking of moral equivalence.Haldraper (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Hal's point #1. While I would like to see an objective discussion of how many historians believe Jesus actually existed, Hal's point is overreaching. You don't need "scholarly references that disprove the existence of Jesus". What you need is to show that there are non-fringe scholarly assertions that Jesus did not exist. Nancy seems to dismiss Christ myth theory as fringe. Hal's task is to to show that it is a viable scholarly position rather than simply a fringe theory.

I agree with Hal's point #2. Like the United States, the Catholic Church has been perceived as supportive of repressive, reactionary regimes starting with the French monarchy and continuing on through Spain, Mexico and Latin America. This perceived support is a contributing factor to anti-clerical violence (cf. Anti-clericalism) in the aforementioned countries. Moreover, while apologists can make arguments about the Reichskonkordat, there is also the argument made in John Cornwell's book, Hitler's Pope' that, while he was a Papal Nuncio, Pius XII deliberately negotiated the Concordat in such a way that Papal authority would be maximized at the expense of the German Catholic Church even if it meant disempowering the German Catholic Church in the face of Nazi oppression.

As for Hal's point #3, the question to ask is: What is meant by "accepted practice"? It appears that it was "standard operating procedure" for bishops in the United States. Was that "accepted practice" morally right and legally defensible? I think the verdict of the 21st century is that it isn't. Does the possibility of fixing a psychological problem via counseling warrant continuing to take risks with the lives of innocent children? Probably not. The article doesn't say that the hope of a cure via counseling did warrant taking those risks. The article says that "some bishops and psychiatrists contended..." If that's what they said, that is what they said. If you can offer sources that refute their contention, we can present those sources as well. You have to remember that the 60s and 70s were a time when people thought homosexuality could be cured by psychiatric treatment. It was not until 1973 that homosexuality was removed from the APA's official list of mental disorders (see Homosexuality and psychology). Now, before you get started, I am not equating child abuse with homosexuality. What I am saying is that before 1973 psychiatrists thought they could cure homosexuality and so it is also possible that they thought they could cure pedophilia as well. Heck, some people still think it is possible to "cure" homosexuality. Now, with respect to pedophilia, our approach seems to be "throw 'em in jail, put them in a sexual offenders registry, chemically castrate them and hound them so that they cannot find a place to work or live". Is this approach more humane than attempting to help them overcome their problem? No. Is it more effective? Possibly. But now we're in the realm of opinion and judgment, not the realm of fact.

Regarding Hal's unnumbered fourth point, so... what exactly do you mean by "moral equivalence"? Aren't the underlying crimes "morally equivalent" regardless of whether they are committed by a priest or by a teacher? I think what you're really trying to say is that "putting the crimes in numerical perspective" doesn't excuse the crime or diminish it in any way. The opposite argument is that media attention on sexual abuse by Catholic priests is out of proportion and thus possibly motivated by an anti-Catholic animus. Personally, I think we should be honest about what people are alleging and get it out in the open. If some people want to play "injured victim" (poor little Catholic me, picked upon by the nasty anti-Catholic media), then we should report that and let the reader decide whether or not they have sympathy for the Catholics. I think there are many Catholics who are the innocent bystanders to a train wreck caused by a few thousand priests and a handful of bishops. Parish churches and parochial schools have been closed to pay the settlements to the victims. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether the media coverage was overblown or not. The Catholic Church finally realized it had a problem and and is taking steps to address it. That's what counts. Time will tell how effective those steps will be.

--Rudy Waltz (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with NancyHeise. Any thorough review of the edit history of the article, and this talk page, makes it clear that the article is hardly written by a group of catholic apologists alone. Some of the more heated debates and edit wars do indeed appear to begin with an editor with a specific POV, although it is just as likely, if not more likely to be someone with an anti-catholic perspective. But the article is so widely monitored that these issues tend to smooth out through consensus to an acceptable NPOV result. Given the nature of the topic, it is inevitable that POV vigilance will be required. The tag is not necessary, and any specific critiques should be dealt with point-by-point in this talk section. Sweeping POV claims with general criticisms and complaints make for good soap-boxing, but are not constructive. --anietor (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of concordats - a lot of people misunderstand what a concordat is. It is an agreement with a neutral or potentially hostile government, to protect the rights of the Church, to its property, freedom of worship etc. It is not a political alliance or form of backing for the government concerned. Xandar 12:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

John Cornwell's point is that Pacelli (later Pius XII) deliberately negotiated the Reichskonkordat to favor Papal authority rather than the authority of the local bishops, thereby disempowering the German Catholic Church. It is a matter of debate whether Pacelli could have defended the rights of the local bishops and achieved a different concordat with Hitler which favored the German Catholic Church. It's unlikely that Hitler would have respected the rights of the German Catholic Church no matter what the concordat said. Cornwell's point was that Pacelli's philosophy was inclined to ride roughshod over the rights of the local church. Apologists would argue that Pacelli did the best he could in a difficult situation. --Rudy Waltz (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the history of Spain, there is a complicated background beyond that of the modern legend, including the fact that the Church had been forced into the arms of the Nationalists by the massacres of Catholics by the "Republican" side. See Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. Xandar 12:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps not the place to go into a deep discussion of Spanish history but I would like to understand more of what Xandar's position is on this topic. It seems to me that the issue is that anti-clericalism was expressed in most of Europe via the Reformation and other subsequent developments such as the French Revolution. The Catholic Church held sway in the Spanish Empire for much longer and the anti-clericalism that swept Europe in earlier centuries did not hit the Spanish Empire until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Franco's regime provided the Church with an exceptional opportunity to enjoy rights that it did not enjoy elsewhere. However, the Church eventually withdrew its support of Franco. I think the argument still holds that the Church has tended to be on the side of the establishment (monarchy in France, landed gentry in Latin America, Franco in Spain, slaveholders in the U.S., etc.) rather than on the side of the "proletariat". (NB: The Russian Orthodox Church was perceived to have the same tainted association with the Russian monarchy and landed aristocracy and thus became the target of the Bolsheviks.) As a result, there is a left-wing anti-clericalism that has often expressed itself in violence. These points should be made, not in a POV attack but in an NPOV dispassionate explanation of history. --Rudy Waltz (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of unbalanced POV in the article and much of it reads like the worst kind of populist and unscholarly tract of 50 years ago. Unfortunately attempts to make it more NPOV are too often rejected by editors who seem to think it's their personal prerogative and responsibility to keep it at the apologist level instead of a more appropriate encyclopedia level. The main way this seems to happen is by invoking the authority of the references, many of which come from some very unscholarly and biased sources. This article deserves a much better standard but there seems to be little hope of this happening, unfortunately, given the way that Wikipedia operates. At least it's not as bad as many other Roman Catholicism articles which seem to be edited by Opus Dei types. Afterwriting (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated scattergun claims of POV such as that made by Afterwriting are not really helpful here. Simply because the article does not chime in with certain individuals' personal prejudices does not mean that it is biased. People who have made such claims before have been challenged to back up specific points with specific reliable references, and have failed to do so. This article is comparable in content with articles on the same subject in established paper encyclopedias like Britannica and World Book. As far as the theory of Rudy Waltz that anti-clerical violence originates in Church co-operation with establishment power, that is a strand of opinion, but not necessarily a universally accepted fact. Xandar 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• RE: Spanish Civil War Our article addresses the anti-clericalism of the Spanish Civil War referenced to Owen Chadwick - a non-Catholic historian expert on the subject. The article states in a neutral manner the point made by Chadwick that large numbers of priests and nuns were killed by republicans and anarchists because they were symbols of conservatism. Perhaps someone could say this is a POV point of view if the historian saying it were a Catholic apologist but it is not. This statement comes from a non-Catholic very respected expert on the subject, a scholar, a source meeting the highest standards of WP:reliable source examples.
• RE: WWII Concordat I have considered putting this in the article but in doing so it would have to also make the point that my scholarly sources make in that the Pope worked very hard to prevent WWII before it began. They discuss his efforts to arrange meetings between the heads of state and each one's acceptance or refusal. The concordat is described as an effort on the part of the Church to exhaust diplomatic efforts before turning to all out war. These sources include both Catholic and non-Catholic. The reason why we did not include them is because I felt it was too much on WWII and did not maintain focus on the Church organization. Mit Brennender Sorge is mentioned because that document precipitated subsequent severe persecution of the Church and murder of thousands of priests. It is a "notable" event with concrete consequences. NancyHeise ^talk 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I would like to bring up possible inclusion of a sentence on the concordat and efforts Pius too toward averting WWII in the next peer review coming up in September. NancyHeise ^talk 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

HalDraper wrote: "there is no consensus amongst historians that Jesus existed as a human being (as opposed to Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln). A historian who asserts that he did is speaking from religious conviction not contemporary evidence."

The following text is from our article on the Historicity of Jesus:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to various religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.

With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

The four canonical Gospels (most commonly estimated to have been written between 65 and 110 A.D) and the writings of Paul of the New Testament are among the earliest known documents relating to Jesus' life. Some scholars also hypothesize the existence of earlier texts such as the Signs Gospel and the Q document. There are arguments that parts of the Gospel of Thomas are likewise early texts.

Scholarly opinions on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse. At the extremes, they range from the view that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus, to the view that they provide no historical information about his life. The sources extant contain little evidence of Jesus' life before the account of Jesus' Baptism, and it has been suggested by many that the events recorded in the gospels cover a period of less than three years. Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, differentiating authentic, reliable information from inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.

So... unless Hal wishes to argue against the text above, I think we can conclude that most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus existed. I think we can also reasonably assert that "the historical record confirms that the See of Rome in particular was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from its beginning" although it's not 100% clear what relevance this fact has at this particular point in the article.

What I think is shaky is the assertion that "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". First of all, the statement as written contains a bit of an anachronism. There was no point at which Jesus said "I am creating or founding an institution which will be called the Catholic Church". This sentence is shorthand for "the Catholic Church claims to be the continuation of the church founded by Jesus at the event known as the Confession of Peter". Now, there are many challenges to this statement from a number of parties. Not everyone agrees that Jesus meant to confer a primacy to the See of Rome. This view is shared primarily by Catholics and Orthodox and the Orthodox interpret the Primacy of Simon Peter differently than the Catholics do. There are those who question whether Peter was ever in Rome and whether he was ever Bishop of Rome. There are those who question whether there is a legitimate apostolic succession of bishops and particularly whether there is an unbroken line of succession from Peter as the first Bishop of Rome. So... in the context of all these challenges, it's hard to know exactly what is meant by "many scholars agree that...". I think the sentence could be fixed by inserting "Catholic" so as to yield "many Catholic scholars agree that..." but otherwise "many scholars" is too vague and suggests more than can reasonably be claimed.

--Richard (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The point about Jesus as opposed to Lincoln or Napoleon is that there are no contemporary sources pointing to his existence. The fact that most scholars in biblical studies and church history accept his existence can be put down to two things: either they just assume he existed because that's the commonly accepted view (without applying the normal historical method they would apply in other cases) or they are Christians for whom it is a religious conviction that Jesus existed. For these people, it is a case of starting with a predetermined answer (Jesus existed) and then finding or manipulating evidence to support that view. It is the opposite of genuine historical research where you gather evidence and then draw conclusions from it.Haldraper (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I've added the POV tag for three reasons: the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus but also, and mainly, the unbalanced and apologist tone of the sections on child sex abuse and the RCC and right-wing regimes in the twentieth century.Haldraper (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be making some broad assumptions about the approaches of most of these scholars which I don't think is justified. The historicity of Jesus doesn't appear to be an issue in this article since this an article about the Catholic Church and its beliefs, not about the man himself. The article neither validates or invalidates the beliefs and the church's positions; it just states the facts as represented in the sources that were used for the article; stating that these are the beliefs/positions held by the church.

As for the sex abuse scandal, it does appear to focus mainly on corrective the actions and people playing down the scandal, do you have any ideas about what could be done to balance that section? Keeping in mind there is an entire article about this topic which is linked to in the text. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kraftlos, on the first point it would be helpful if you expanded on the basis as you see it that these scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus, i.e. is it contemporary, eyewitness evidence or is it later, second hand hearsay evidence? The historicity of Jesus is relevant because the article not only states (correctly) that the RCC believes itself to have been founded by him but goes on to claim scholarly support for this view.

On the child sex abuse scandal, I think it would be adequate to state the extent of the problem and steps the Church has taken without seeking to compare it favourably to US schools or quoting fringe commentators.Haldraper (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I've modified my comment above to provide the sources used by Historicity of Jesus to back up the assertions made there. verifiability puts the onus on you to challenge the reliability of the sources. You have two basic approaches: (1) you can examine each source and challenge their credibility as a reliable source or (2) you can present a source which challenges the assertion directly. In essence, the way that we put an end to this kind of discussion is by going to the sources. You have made a reasoned argument that suggests that the sources used may be biased because they are religious scholars. You need to first prove that the sources cited are all religious scholars and second provide a source that asserts that all religious scholars suffer from the bias that you assert they do. Otherwise, all this discussion is original research and the sort of thing that goes round and round for pages and pages without any conclusion. --Richard (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I urge you to read the excerpted passage from Historicity of Jesus carefully and then read the full article focusing on the sections titled "Jesus as a historical person" and "Jesus as myth". Then read Christ myth theory. You make valid points, most of which are probably represented in some way in some articles in Wikipedia. The trick here is to determine which is the mainstream opinion and which is the minority opinion (of course, there may not be a single mainstream opinion but rather a number of competing opinions). Feel free to continue your arguments but please back them up with citations to reliable sources rather than relying on your own assumptions and reasoning. --Richard (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Last I remember, Michael Grant, arguably one of the best informed and most realied upon writers on the Roman Empire/early Christian era of recent years, accepted the assertion that Jesus was a historical person. I acknowledge that there have been heated discussions regarding the subject in earlier eras, but as far as I remember the overwhelming consensus of current historians doesn't question the existence of Jesus. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's important to recognize that the consensus of historians only agrees on a limited number of facts about Jesus (basically, he existed, he taught, was regarded as a healer and was probably crucified). Historians do not accept every word of the Gospels as gospel truth. The evidence for the existence of Socrates is equally scant (or maybe even more so). We know darn little about Socrates except through Plato. It is inappropriate to compare what we know about Jesus to what we know about Napoleon or Lincoln.

Richard/John, afaik there are no contemporary historical sources that refer to Jesus. Most historians just assume he existed because that is the Christian tradition that has held sway in Western Europe since the early fifth century. If you know of any primary evidence for his existence, I would be interested to see it. I am not dogmatically against accepting his historical existence, as long as someone can produce some primary rather than second hand evidence.Haldraper (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, first of all, please stop making edits to the article until you have formed a consensus to do so here on this Talk Page. The next edit/revert cycle will result in the page being protected and/or editors being blocked.

Second, I am not interested in arguing with you on the basis of your logic OR on the basis of my logic either. Doing that is what Wikipedia calls original research. I'm not interested one whit in what "historical evidence" you will or will not accept. Nobody cares what you think. And nobody cares what I think either. What Wikipedia relies on is what the reliable sources think. You might not agree with the "consensus of historians" think. If not, that's your problem, not ours. Your call for "primary evidence" suggests a process which is vulnerable to original research. The goal is not to establish the truth but rather to report on what is accepted as scholarly discourse on the topic. There may be more than one perspective to the truth. We should present all perspectives in an NPOV fashion without giving undue weight to minority or fringe opinions.

Now, please consider what is written at this website. It provides a good summary of what a number of well-respected historians think. Here's another good summary from PBS Frontline The Historian's Task What are the challenges in reconstructing Jesus' world?. Here's another bit from PBS Frontline What can we really know about Jesus?

Here is a list of extra-Biblical sources that mention Jesus (admittedly, some of these quotes are open to debate)

Now, can you quote a primary source contemporary with Jesus or the early Christians that asserts that Jesus didn't exist?

I know it's unlikely to expect that such a source exists but the entire point is that we have more mentions of Jesus than assertions that he didn't exist. I'm not talking about proof that he didn't exist. I'm talking about someone who says "Christians are a bother because they worship someone who never existed!" I would wager that non-Christians were more interested in arguing that Jesus had been executed and was dead, gone and buried than in asserting that he never existed.

I offer this next source simply because it seems relevant although I'm not sure if I agree with it. [Jesus and history, the believer and the historian http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1978].

Finally, I want to point out that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We've put forth the sources according to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. It's your turn to make your case with reliable sources. If we say that "most historians accept that Jesus existed", all you need to do is present sources that assert that "most historians deny that Jesus existed". Otherwise, this would be a more suitable forum for you to make your arguments. Saying "What you wrote is bullshit" without providing sources to back up the assertion seems to be an acceptable form of rebuttal there.

--Richard (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Richard is saying, this doesn't appear to be a productive discussion. If you want to challenge something, you will need to address existing sources or introduce other reliable sources that state your viewpoint. And again I say that you are making broad assumptions about the scholars represented in the sources of this article that you did not justify. It's not my job to disprove an accusation that is not followed with proper argumentation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As several people have mentioned, the text in the article has been the subject of a lengthy process of referencing, debate and agreement. Removing or altering large swathes of it by an individual editor is therefore NOT the way to proceed. Nor is it right to add POV or other tags to the article because you disagree with some of the content. In both cases the proper thing to do is come to the talk page and discuss your concerns and your hard evidence to back those concerns so that it can be discussed with the existing editors. A page at this stage of development requires significant changes to be made by consensus. Xandar 11:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it overkill or not?

Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church is wikilinked three times in the article.

• It is in the Roman Catholic Church template at the top of the page
• It is listed at the top of the "History" section as a "further information" link
• It is in See Also

I am not sure that this represents Wikipedia policy. Does anyone have any thoughts on proper presentation here? I can think of some problems that might arise giving this article so many links as charges of excessive weight may be leveled at us. NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, mea culpa. I put the link back into the "See also" section not realizing that it was already mentioned as a {{see}} link in the History section. I don't think three links is excessive but it could be cut down to two if you think it necessary. My preference would be to take it out of the {{seealso}} in the History section as the Criticism is not just historical in nature. --Richard (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking it out of the see also section as suggested by Richard is a good idea. --anietor (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment was written incorrectly and thus wound up being confusing. My apologies. The Criticism article is mentioned at the top of the "History" section using the {{see}] template and also in the "See also" section. My recommendation was to take it out of the "History" section. Your comment suggested something different from what I proposed while attributing your approach to me. Please clarify whether you meant to agree with me or offer a different opinion. Thanx and sorry for the confusion. --Richard (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your comment had too many "see"s in it! I think I did, indeed, misunderstand your suggestion. Sorry about that. Actually, I would suggest removing the criticism link from the RCC template box (where it's listed under "background") and removing it from the "History" section (which I believe was your recommendation). --anietor (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with that recommendation too. I am wondering though if it is OK for large articles like RCC to have more than one wikilink to certain articles. Criticism of the Catholic Church encompasses history and beliefs. I think that it might be good to keep it as a See Also and in the template - one at the top and one at the bottom of the page. Also, this page has some linked articles at the very bottom, it is a template of some sort that I think overlaps with the template at the top of the page. One editor complained to me once that the page took too long to upload on his dial-up before we trimmed it significantly. I am wondering if maybe one of these templates could be eliminated. What do you think? NancyHeise ^talk 01:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just glanced at the two templates, the one at the bottom of the page is more comprehensive and I would like to keep that one and eliminate the one at the top of the page. Can we keep the picture of St. Peter's Basilica and toss the template? Consensus? NancyHeise ^talk 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I think the top template is more important. All the major religious articles have a navigation template like this, which is prominent and gives quick links to related articles. If you really must remove a tremplate, the bottom one is the least accessible and least useful, since 95% of users probably never even see it. Actually the templates load separately from the page anyway, so I don't see a great problem. Xandar 14:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one would be strongly hesitant to change a template merely for editorial reasons on one particular article. I concur with X that the top template is very standard and important. I do not object to the bottom one either, although admit I tend to use these templates frequently. I recognize the original concern, and think that removing the inline link from the History section would be the right thing to do. That said, the article is quite large so the sky will not fall if it is kept. But in a perfect world, I would remove that one. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bad idea to change a template to suit the needs of one article. That said, calling "Criticism" part of "Background" is not great. Perhaps that template needs a redesign. --Richard (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is running towards keeping the navigation template at the top of the page and keeping "Criticism" in the "See also" section. There is not a strong insistence on removing "Criticism" from the "History" section but, if one of the three instances must be removed, that is the one that people support removing. I personally don't like the templates at the bottom as they are often not as useful so the one at the bottom could be removed or kept (no strong consensus in either direction). --Richard (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is really the central hub for all Catholicism articles. I am OK with keeping both templates if it helps people navigate and find other articles. I don't have a strong opinion on removing any links including Criticism. We are trying to help Reader find things not make it more difficult for him or her. Maybe we can address this at the next peer review we are planning for this article in September. NancyHeise ^talk 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More POV

I've rv to remove POV material. I'll go through it in detail but it falls into two sections: child sex abuse and science:

1. "Some commentators, such as journalist Jon Dougherty, have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that the same problems plague other institutions, such as the US public school system, with much greater frequency"

The problem with this is it's just not relevant, its only function is to seek to deflect criticsm of the RCC. It is not a question of "the same problems" so is not comparing like with like. Much of the 'abuse' referred to in schools is often minor (inappropriate touching) or consists of consensual relationships between young men and women (or women and men) which in other circumstances would be entirely legal. The same cannot be said of the abuse carried out by Catholic priests which fits neither category.

2."In contrast with periods of perceived religious and scientific intolerance in the past, today's Church seeks dialogue like this with other faiths and Christian denominations."

This is clearly an opinion that is open to debate and therefore POV. It is not an objective fact suitable for a encyclopaedic article. It would be challenged by many within other faith groups, e.g. Muslims, Jews, and many in the scientific community, e.g. those engaged in anti-AIDS work, stem cell research etc.

"It also sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a body whose international membership includes Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates such as Charles Hard Townes among many others, and which provides the pope with valuable insights into scientific matters."

It is vague, unreferenced and POV to say it provides "valuable insights". What are they, what have been their effect on the RCC's teaching's? 'Valuable' is a POV word: describe what scientific advice they have provided to the Pope and its consequences and let readers draw their own conclusions.

Haldraper (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper: Please STOP making unagreed POV edits to the main page. You have been told that this is not the way to do things, and that you must discuss and agree significant changes here first - yet you persist. I see from your talk page that you are a new editor, and have been warned many times already for this sort of behaviour on other articles. PLEASE CEASE. Xandar 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with WP:BRD per Xandar, and offer some specific comments to Haldraper's issues:

1) I think I recognize the concern you express here, but I point out you could have expressed it better. For one, that content has significant function beyond what you claim: it serves to clarify how WP:WEIGHT would have us incorporate the previous content. If there is a significant quantity of reliably sourced material about the abuse, but its coverage is incongruous with its content, then the issue is the coverage may be more "newsy" and less encyclopedic. This tends to happen on topics which pique the public's interest; you do not see that type of issue with e.g., symmetric groups. I don't understand your like-vs-like argument, as it is merely a circular one.

The major issue with Dougherty's comment as included is that the section's writing reflects a he-said-she-said editing style which reads like crap, frankly. That is an artifact of the wiki model of editing, whereas often different editors try to get in their particular POVs in, and rather than writing a well synthesized and constructed section, append on something that reads like a retort.

The solution isn't to omit one "side" or the other, which would run into POV problems, but to rewrite the whole thing. It isn't easy, I know, but that would make for a better article.

2) The second part of that sentence should be sourced, or at least the material supporting it should be. Although frankly, that should be very easy to do. The first part is a weasel construction and designed to set up a strawman, one which would be well done to fix: In actuality the Church has historically been one of the most supportive institutions of science known. So yeah, this could be considerably improved.

3) "valuable" almost certainly can be sourced (I am thinking of a Discover Magazine article about a year ago for one) but I would agree it would be better dropped. The Academy should be mentioned in this article, but that amount of qualification here seems excessive. Since it had its own link, that would be the place for all of that stuff. The simple "It also sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences." should be adequate. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Xandar and Baccyak - I also want to add that the paragraph on sexual abuse was one of the most discussed - large consensus agreed to present form. The paragraph is a compromise between one that was more pro-Catholic POV and another that was less so. JBMurray wrote the present paragraph and we like it as a compromise between the two former suggestions. The commentator who makes the suggestion that media coverage was excessive also makes the comparison that sex abuse in US public school system is "10 times worse than in the Catholic Church". He says this because Charol Shakeshaft, the woman who conducted the study for the US Dept of Education [4] says this very thing in her analysis - she said "You think the Catholic Church has a problem?" and then she introduces her report that shows it is ten times worse in the public schools.[5] This entire analysis is not in our little paragraph, we only have some commentator's comments that obscure this very big comparison that puts the abuse for Catholic Church in perspective. The Church runs the worlds largest non-governmental school system - it appears that pedophiles are attracted to places where children can be found in abundance - in places both Catholic and not. The commentator's point is just this. My personal question is why were there zillions of news articles about the Catholic Church abuse and less than 5 (USA Today, Associated Press, Newsmax - not sure of more) on the more common and greater problem ("10 times worse") of sexual abuse in the US Public Schools Sytem? NancyHeise ^talk 16:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• As for the Catholicism Today section, I have added to the sentence that Haldraper objects to, the one that says "perceived". It now says "real or perceived". Any objections? I think that is an accurate statement because sometimes it has been real and others just perceived - like now! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While by saying "real or perceived", you have indeed made the statement demonstrably true, it is emptily so, a tautology. I do not think the whole "In contrast" construction is a good one at all, for the reasons I said just above. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• As for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences - "valuable" is already cited to that Discover Magazine article - this is it [6] if anyone wants to read what scientists really think of the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tht's the source, yes. I did not check for "valuable" though because I still am of the opinion that the commentary on the Academy should be consolidated significantly, per my comments above. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• These ideas sound like they'd make a better article. I also echo Baccyak's point that WP:BRD is really the best way to work with content on Wikipedia, there's no reason for an editor to preemptively restrain themselves from editing as long as they follow up on the talkpage if someone objects. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the link to the article by US Catholic bishop objecting to the the ban on ordaining gay priests as blurring the distinction between homosexuality and paedophilia be restored? Haldraper (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be very uncomfortable with this as it was portrayed before reversion. The content seems to qualify a statement which from itself implies the distinction is clarified, not blurred. That is either extraordinary journalistic sloppiness, undue polemics by the ones quoted in the source, or just simple wrong context to use this particular content. I haven't checked which one as it clearly does not improve the article by having the content where it was. That does mean however that it may be possible to use the material in some other way, although again (cf Academy) the level of detail seems excessive for this article of a worldwide organization that is many centuries old. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

When you say 'clarified' what do you mean? The sentence as it stands assumes a link between homosexuality and paedophilia that most in the field (not to mention gay men) would deny.Haldraper (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous sentence '[... and,] because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies"' (emph mine). If you look up paedophilia, you will see it is not about teenage boys, at least formally. The formal meaning here is clearly implied by talking about a "link" between two sets of psychological preferences. Like I said, either someone there didn't do their journalistic homework, someone they quoted is spouting garbage (likely because paedophilia is a far more recognizable and loaded word), or rather that content just doesn't belong there at all. Actually, the last is pretty obvious in any case; perhaps in context the source and its content aren't as problematic, but that context is not here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical Catholic casuistry, you're not a Jesuit are you :-)?Haldraper (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, the article text states "The US Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers;[409][410] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[153][408] The sentence is stating a fact not an opinion. The Church took certain steps to prevent future abuse, one of those was to prohibit ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies", their own reason for doing this was based on the fact being that the vast majority of victims were teenage boys. That's the Church's actual reason, we have to state what steps the Church took to prevent future abuse and this is one of those. This is not a slam to homosexuals, this does not say that the Church thinks all homosexuals are paedophils. Where does the article say that? NancyHeise ^talk 02:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No he's probably not a Jesuit, but I wish I was. Gabr-el 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see without reading every word, neither of the sources cited actually says wht the article cites them for, that child abuse was the, or even a, reason for the ban on homosexual priests. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources do support the text but to make it easier for others who may not want to read the long versions, I just added a short article that says the same thing. I hope that helps. See new reference here: [7] . NancyHeise ^talk 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All that source says is that was the reason for more effective enforcement of existing poicy: not what the article says. Peter jackson (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you and I'll explain why with links and quotes from the actual sources. The Worldnetdaily source states [8] "The policy statement is a direct result of the pope's concern about the pedophilia scandal in the church – especially in the U.S. ". The CNS source says [9] "Among issues the board addressed concerning abusive priests were questions of seminary formation, celibacy and homosexual orientation" and "It also noted that the study found 81 percent of the abuse victims were male and 78 percent were between the ages of 11 and 17" and "Noting the preponderance of adolescent males among the victims of clerical sexual abuse of minors, the board devoted several pages of its report to the question of what role sexual orientation of priests played in the abuse scandal. From interviews, evidence and a study of church teachings distinguishing between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity, the board concluded, 'The paramount question in this area must be whether a candidate for the priesthood is capable of living a chaste, celibate life, not what that candidate's sexual orientation must be.' 'But given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the realities of the culture today and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching inquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry,' it said." The sentence in the RCC article reflects these sources. NancyHeise ^talk 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are 2 paragraphs from the worldnet article (quite early on).

"The "Instruction" does not represent a change in church teaching or policy, according to the Vatican.

Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America."

Isn't that clear enough? The policy already existed. The scandal prompted only more effective enforcement. That also can be called a policy, so you have to look at each context to see which is referrred to. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the previous policy was not enforced because it was more of a suggestion, an instruction issued from the Vatican to direct worldwide seminaries. Seminaries were still left to decide for themselves, ultimately, who to admit and ordain. Each Bishop's conference is allowed to establish their own seminary formation standards. The scandal resulted in this new policy telling the seminaries they absolutely could not ordain men with deep seated homosexual tendencies - something more than a suggestion - something directly resulting from the sex abuse scandals. The source states also "The pending release of the "Instruction," in the face of certain criticism from liberal forces in America and Western Europe, demonstrates the determination of the Vatican to improve the quality of priestly ministry and to protect the church from some of the scandals that have recently shaken the Catholic community – and no doubt deterred many men from entering priestly training." NancyHeise ^talk 23:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so far so good. Nevertheless, mentioning the recent strict rule without mentioning the preexisting vague policy is liable to give many readers the false impression that the church was quite happy with homosexual priests until recently. Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I am not sure of a concise way to fit that in there but will work on it. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

child abuse - just allegations?

One of my concerns in the last FAC for this article was that it dismissed the sex abuse cases as merely allegations, even though the Church has repeatedly admitted that some cases actually happened. Looking at the current version "Major lawsuits emerged in 2001 claiming some priests had sexually abused minors.[402] In the US, the country with the vast majority of sex abuse cases,[403] the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who served in the US from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.[404][405] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations,". Whilst I don't doubt that some allegations are still disputed or were even disproved, I do think that the article should make it clear that a large amount of child abuse actually did take place. ϢereSpielChequers 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Because some of the cases have been disproved, even if that is a small percentage, "allegations" is a correct term. I think the fact the article also contains the statement "because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys" it would thus be difficult to infer that the "vast majority" were untrue allegations. NancyHeise ^talk 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You may find it useful to look at the lead to 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal (formerly titled Catholic sex abuse cases). The article itself needs a lot of work but the lead is in pretty good shape (even if I do say so myself, having written much of it). The point that the lead is trying to make is that there are allegations and accusations which lead to criminal charges and convictions. However, if you look at the the study commissioned by the USCCB, the numbers run like this 4392 priests accused, 384 charged, 252 convicted. This is not say that every one of the other 4008 priests were innocent, just that they were not charged (could have died, found unfit for trial or the evidence may not have been sufficient to prosecute). I think it would be good to summarize the main points from the lead of 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal here. --Richard (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, that article is wikilinked in the very first sentence of the paragraph. I agree it is a great analysis of the whole situation. The paragraph in RCC already contains the most vital information and adheres to WP:summary style that makes use of wikilinks like this to provide more information. NancyHeise ^talk 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I agree that the article should make clear that 4% were alleged to have committed abuse, but I think it currently reads in such a way that all cases are still challenged. I've now read and slightly tweaked 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal; and I think we should try and rephrase this paragraph in such a way as to make clear that some abuse is acknowledged to have taken place. ϢereSpielChequers 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase "the vast majority of victims" does that already. I don't think stating the fact that only 6% of the accused were convicted will help make the point you want to make. "vast majority of victims" is, I think, more descriptive. NancyHeise ^talk 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm open to improvements of the section of this article on the abuse scandals, including some indication of percentage of allegations proven, the current wording is the result of a long process of discussion and agreement among many editors. Caution also has to be maintained on portrayal of this subject as part of the larger article. One factor is Undue Weight. Another is that the approach should be factual rather than sensational. As such, I am not happy with the approach in the lead to the main abuse article. Statements such as "As it became clear that there was truth to many of the allegations and that there was a pattern of sexual abuse and cover-up " and "A major aggravating factor was the actions of Catholic bishops to keep these crimes secret and to reassign the accused to other parishes in positions where they had continued unsupervised contact with youth, thus allowing the abusers to continue their crime" are both opinionated and misleading, making factual allegations against the motives of Catholic bishops which are unproven, as well as not making clear what was standard practice for dealing with abuse allegations at the time. The claim that there is a "world crisis" is also wrong. The article itself has some very serious errors, huge exaggerations and false material that is easily checkable. I will post more on the article talk page. Xandar 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, not for the first time it has been suggested that moving people on, referring them for counselling, but not informing the police, was 'standard practice', rather than just the practice of the RCC, in cases of alleged child sex abuse in the past so is something it should not be criticised for. Can you back this up with some evidence apart from bishops now asserting that this was the case? Haldraper (talk)

An incredibly small percentage of child abuse allegations were generally reported to police until quite recently. There are reports which make reference to these practices - for example the following report into practice in US Public schools during the 1990s, where less than 1% of alleged abusers were reported to the police, and the practice of sending abusers on to other schools without informing the new school or school board even had a name - "passing on the trash." Full report:In Loco Parentis Report

Xandar 11:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We're back to US schools again. I think a major problem with this whole section is that it is too US-centric. I know numerically the US has the most cases but there is also the ratio of cases to population to take into account. The Ryan Report that has just come out detailing the decades of physical and sexual abuse of thousands of children carried out by priests and nuns in Ireland describes the way in which the RCC not only covered this up but the collusion of doctors, social workers, police, teachers and civil servants. Not too surprising given at the time in Ireland the Church was not so much above the law as in effect the law in all matters political, moral and social.Haldraper (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, reading the report you just linked to confirms what I said before on this subject. Much of the 'abuse' referred to in schools is often minor (suggestive comments/inappropriate touching) or consists of consensual relationships between young men and women (or women and men) which in other circumstances would be entirely legal. Read the wiki entry on the Ryan Report produced by the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse which has page after page detailing the horrors of institutionalised physical and sexual assault of children. You are not comparing like with like and your persistence in this amounts to an attempt to minimise the real abuse carried out by your Church.Haldraper (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, the Ireland abuse is a report on the many schools, orphanages and shelters run by the Church which was the country's source of social services. If you look at US foster care system and child services, you find basically the same pattern of abuse. If you want to compare apples to apples, we need to include this comparison. Some abuse happens just because the only people willing to take care of indigents is the Church - and the church makes use of a lot of volunteer help - not all of that volunteer help is qualified - which is why the US Church implemented the Charter for the Protection of Young People. This Charter was the first to require all people, including volunteers, who work with children in the Church environment to be fingerprinted and have a background check. Even moms voluteering at their children's schools now have to do this - I had to do this. The public schools don't do this. NancyHeise ^talk 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Nancy but you are just deluding yourself here. The abuse in Ireland happened to the extent it did because of the dominant role of the Church there from independence in the 20's up until the 90's. It told teachers, doctors, civil servants journalists,social workers and government ministers what to do. No one, including the victims, felt they could speak out against the Church in a society so rigidly and pervasively controlled by it. Ireland's integration into the EU has led to progress on human rights issues (including access to contraception and divorce for the first time since the 20's) and consequently a loosening of the grip the RCC had on Irish society, allowing the media and victims to finally expose the abuse and the Church's collusion in covering it up.Haldraper (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your remarks about US-centrism. It's interesting that even those complaining on this page that the RCC has been singled out don't seem to have mentioned that an Anglican diocese in Canada was actually bankrupted by child abuse suits. Peter jackson (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we would also see the US Public School System bankrupted too by abuse lawsuits if the lawyers weren't restricted by law as to how much they can receive. That's why they never bother to sue - they can't win a huge judgement because the law caps it at something like a hundred thousand dollars. This is done so that the innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with the abuse aren't required to pay for someone else's mistake. However, the same logic does not apply to innocent Catholics like me - we have to pay for someone else's mistake and then some - to the point of closing inner city schools where the kids then get tossed into a school system (the public schools) where the problem is "ten times worse" - doesn't make sense to me. NancyHeise ^talk 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you haven't answered the point - in fact you've underlined it in your last post - as to why the section is so US-centred when it's an international issue. As with Xandar, you also seem determined to carry on equating often minor incidents in US schools with the kind of institutionalised, systematic abuse uncovered by the Ryan Report, to which journalists, politicians etc under the thumb of the RCC turned a blind eye for decades.Haldraper (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, the issue is US centered because we have refs that say the whole sex abuse issue is US centered. The "vast majority" of all sex abuse cases worldwide were in the US. We have indicated in our paragraph this referenced fact and referenced why. NancyHeise ^talk 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Haldraper, I think you are confusing the Ireland report with the priest sex abuse scandals. The Ireland report was on abuse (physical, emotional and sexual) that existed in Ireland's orphanages, shelters, homes, schools, (social services provided by the Catholic Church). The abuse in that report was not specifically carried out by priests nor even specifically by adults and most of it was not sexual abuse. That is an entirely different issue than the priest sex abuse scandals. NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Outcome of mediation

Overview

This was a multiparty mediation filed on January 19, 2009 by NancyHeise and signed by 19 participants, of which 17 have been active. The mediation was accepted by the Mediation Committee on January 27 and Shell Kinney agreed to mediate on February 10. Due to off-wiki commitments, Shell withdrew from the mediation; Sunray took over as mediator on March 4, 2009.

The mediation centered on the first part of the lead sentence of the Roman Catholic Church article: "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church..." At issue was the use of the word "officially" and also the significance and relative importance of the two names. Other issues in dispute pertained to the explanatory note for the two names and the use of sources in the note. Participants reviewed several alternative proposals for the wording of the lead sentence.

Research by participants determined that the name the "Catholic Church" was the most common name and also the name most commonly used by the church, when referring to itself. There was a rough consensus in favor of changing the first part of the lead sentence and much thought and discussion went into rewording the lead. It was agreed to re-draft the explanatory note to accompany this wording. This called into question the name of the article. Participants were guided by WP policy and guidelines on naming.

Relevant policy and guidelines on naming

The policy on naming conventions states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity..." [10].

The following convention applies: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article..." [11]

The section of the policy on Controversial names specifically refers to Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church [12] and refers one to the guideline on naming conflicts. The guideline states: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." [13]

The guideline sets the following standards for making a choice among controversial names:

• "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name."

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

• "Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)."

Findings

• Google searches show that "Catholic Church" is the most common of the two names used on the Vatican website.
• The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council (see "Explanatory note").
• "Roman Catholic Church" is used primarily for communications with other churches.

Action plan

1. Change lead sentence

The lead sentence will be modified to read as follows:

"The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church...^{Note 1}

2. Add new explanatory note

The note will be modified to the following:

"There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church", since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity. The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance. The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic", means "universal". It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century. After the East-West Schism, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox". Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches.

The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Especially in English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy. Within the Church, the name "Roman Church," in the strictest sense, refers to the Diocese of Rome."

3. Rename the article

In light of the fact that "Catholic Church" is not only the most common name, but the name used by the Church to describe itself, it is the consensus of participants to rename the article "Catholic Church."

Consultation process

This summary and action plan are posted to the article talk page for community consultation. Shell and I will be mediating the discussion, which will close at 12:00 noon, UTC, on June 26, 2009. The participants in the mediation welcome discussion regarding the action plan. Sunray (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)