Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

Church teaching

Can I ask why it is necessary to have a paragraph about church teaching when we could just as easily link through the main article which covers this in greater depth: "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."[12] The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong.[13]" It seems to serve as apologetics. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It provides context. If you don't know what the teaching is, an article about dissenters won't make a lot of sense. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a brief statement is helpful for context, but I think the "church opposes unjust discrimination" is already a little too prominent in the main article, and certainly isn't meaningful here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. BrianCUA there are two editors now agreed that we should amend this section. Can you propose a compromise solution as the one editor arguing for the full inclusion of all this material. Many thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There are only two sentences. What could we possibly cut and still provide an overview of Catholic teaching on the matter? --BrianCUA (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Briancua: Cut "All people, including those that are LGBT, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The remaining sentence is still not perfect (because leaving the church's position at "they just oppose premarital sex, this is totally neutrally applied" elides the fact that the church opposes same-sex marriage and constantly acts with regard to gay people specifically) but it's a start. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes - I think this is a good solution. Will amend the text accordingly. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree it was probably too prominent in the lede. I wasn't looking there, as apparently Roscelese was not looking at the section. I still contend that it provides valuable context for the article. If you don't know what the teaching is, what good does it do you to know that people dissent from it? With what do they disagree? A few lines with a high level overview is absolutely called for. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Briancua: I totally agree that the article needs a statement of what it is that people are dissenting from, I just think that's adequately covered by a sentence in the lede. It isn't the church's supposed respect, compassion, sensitivity, and hatred of discrimination that anyone's protesting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have two thoughts on this. First, any "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It's not appropriate to just cover it there and then not in the body. Secondly, if we don't say that the church teaches respect, compassion, sensitivity, and hatred of discrimination, then it won't make any sense that someone would protest the lack thereof. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"if we don't say that the church teaches respect, compassion, sensitivity, and hatred of discrimination, then it won't make any sense that someone would protest the lack thereof" - ??? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a short sentence in the lead is sufficient. If people want to find out all the detail on what the Church teaches then there is, of course, a very long article which they can link into. I don't see the point of duplicating the material here. BrianCUA - you have been a strong advocate of helping to shorten articles so I don't understand why in this instance you want to make this article longer but duplicating material which is sufficiently covered elsewhere? I'd also be tempted to avoid over-emphasizing the message that the "Church teaches respect, compassion, sensitivity, and hatred of discrimination" as to be honest the track record of the Church on this in relation to gay men and women is not great (as the evidence shows). Contaldo80 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, I will point you to MOS:LEDE which says that information should not appear in the lede if it does not also appear in the body. There are many articles, particularly those that cover similar topics, where content is duplicated--and rightfully so. Additionally, when I have sought to shorten articles by spinning out daughter articles, it was because they were WP:TOOBIG. I have never advocated deleting relevant, sourced material simply to make an article shorter. Can you cite for me a policy as to why this section should be deleted? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting partially: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". A line that the Church teaches homosexual activity is wrong is a basic fact. That is sufficient for this article. Otherwise I fear the section we have upfront serves as a warning to the casual reader i.e "you're about to read material that shows how many people don't agree with the Catholic church on how it deals with homosexuality but before you do that we want to just remind you that the Catholic church loves gay people and only stops from recognizing their rights and freedoms because it loves them so much." A clear example of tendentious editing. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

For readers who are not as well versed in Catholic theology as you are, it is not a basic fact. Rather than continue to edit war, however, I will seek outside opinions. Also, you have accused me of WP:TE. Would you please cite for me which characteristic of tendentious editing I have exhibited? In fact, I suggest to you that your deletion of this section may mark you as "One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others." I would appreciate it if you would retract that accusation. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you have to be well versed in Catholic theology to be able to grasp the basic fact that the Catholic church disapproves of homosexuality. And I'm certainly not an expert in theology, although thank you for the compliment. I agree that it would be unwise of you to continue to edit war and welcome your attempt to find a sensible way forward. I am not disputing that the point is not cited - rather that insisting that it be included in full in both the lead and the main text raises genuine concerns around NPOV. So therefore the "cited addition" is not "pertinent" - and you've yet to achieve consensus that it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about Catholic sexual ethics, how would you know that? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that most people aren't genuinely aware that the Catholic Church disapproves of gay sex? And that only those with a developed understanding of Catholic sexual ethics would be in the know? That would surprise me. I think it's a fairly elementary fact, and we don't need a huge section to cover the matter. ThanksContaldo80 (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. There are nearly eight billion people on the Earth, but only one billion Catholics. Even if every Catholic had a complete understanding of what the Church taught, that is only 12.5% of the human population. I'm not calling for a "huge section." I am advocating for three sentences. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So I have a clear understanding of your argument: it is not a commonly established fact that the Catholic church condemns homosexuality. Material can't be put into the lead without further elaboration in the main article unless it is a commonly established fact. Therefore we need to put a section of text into the main article explaining why the Catholic church condemns homosexuality (even though this would duplicate other articles where a reader could more sensible just link through). Have I got the understanding right? Contaldo80 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

With the minor correction that the church condemns homosexual acts, not homosexuality, yes, that is my position. Per WP:MTAU, the "content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." It continues to say that "the general reader has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is." We should be writing this article to be understandable by people who have no familiarity with Catholic sexual ethics. --BrianCUA (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest we draw the line somewhere. Otherwise a section on explaining the ins and outs of church teaching and practice over centuries on this subject could end up very long if we are careful to avoid cherry picking. Particularly when the material is sufficiently covered in other related articles.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree. You will notice that I have only ever said I thought there should be a high level overview. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed tag

Contaldo keeps adding the {{fact}} tag to a statement in the Church teaching section. However, the proper use of that tag is "to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation to a reliable source." In this case, the statement is attributed to a reliable source. He also says, quite rightly, that "I have the right to see the supporting quote in full." However, I don't have a copy of that book. If he wishes to check it, I would suggest that his local library or bookstore may have a copy. As you will remember, this article was recently spun off from Catholic Church and homosexuality. The statement Contaldo is now questioning was in that article since October 30, 2013. I can see that Contaldo was quite active on that page at that time. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you BrianCUA for finally engaging on this point. I have asked for reassurance that the source quoted in Stewart Church, "Gay and Lesbian Issues: A Reference Handbook" makes the specific point that it is "objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex" as a comparison with the Church's rejection of homosexual relationships. You've now clarified that you have not read the source and cannot confirm that - despite the fact that you have insisted that this point be retained in the article in full. This statement is tendentious and controversial. If someone can clarify what the source actually says then I think it's fair to stay in. If none of us know what was actually said (and it is highly doubtful a gay handbook would make such a point) then it needs to come out. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If you doubt this statement is supported by this source, then get the source and disprove it. You can't delete sourced material simply because you don't like it. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see the page and the info is there. In fact, it's an unattributed direct quote from the source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you Roscelese. Very helpful - much appreciated. BrianCUA - I am finding your comments (such as those above) very aggressive and hostile. Please remember to assume WP:GOODFAITH. It is not unreasonable to ask editors to clarify sources they have used - especially where the point is contentious. We are all working together to ensure articles are as strong as possible.Contaldo80 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on the church teaching section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article contain a section, such as the one below, explaining what the Church's teaching on homosexuality is?--BrianCUA (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong.

• You've got to be kidding me, Brian. You know this isn't the locus of disagreement and anyone who reads the rest of the talk page can see it as well. State what you mean: that you want to include some puffery about how the Church loves and respects gay people and for some reason the gays keep protesting that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That isn't even remotely true. I'm advocating for a high level overview that explains what it is that the Church teaches so that readers know with what some people disagree. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest amending the RFC to include the disputed text. For reference, the text that you want to include that Contaldo and I disagree with including is "All people, including those that are LGBT, 'must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.'". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. The RFC should be amended accordingly. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. Amended. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, not with the current wording. The RCC's alleged respect, compassion, and anti-discrimination policy towards gay people have nothing to do with this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• No. A simple statement in the lead stating that the Catholic church condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral is sufficient. There does not need to be material in the main text reiterating this point - and language around respect etc is not appropriate in this article and better dealt with in the main article on teaching (as it already is). Contaldo80 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

BrianCua you edited the article on 3 October to include a section in the main body of the text which says "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong." You've given the justification that "We seem to have come to an agreement on talk that a brief overview is appropriate. We can always tweak the verbiage if needed." I am really really puzzled because I don't think your changes seem to have reflected in any way the points raised by Roscelese and myself? It's almost as if we aren't there. Can you clarify please on what point you think agreement has been reached and how you're edits reconcile with that? Roscelese - do you think I'm talking nonsense here or would you agree with my concerns? Happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood anything. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I read your comment on October 2nd as if you were saying that you agreed a short overview was appropriate. You wanted to draw the line so that we didn't end up with an overly long section on the teaching. Was that not the case? If not, would you please address the guideline that says articles "should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience" and for an audience "largely unfamiliar with the topic"? --BrianCUA (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As you can see above with reference to this RFC I said a "simple statement in the lead stating that the Catholic church condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral is sufficient. There does not need to be material in the main text reiterating this point - and language around respect etc is not appropriate in this article and better dealt with in the main article on teaching". Roscelese felt particularly that flowery language around "sensitivity" etc was not appropriate - with which I agree. And yet you've restored material into the main body of text - not just the lead - and which continues to have the language around sensitivity. Do you feel you have sufficiently achieved consensus for this move? Contaldo80 (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I based my action off of your later comment. If you can improve upon the language, I would welcome it. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You are playing games and making a mockery of editing. My comments above in this RFC are clear. The language will be improved by being removed from the main body of the text. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. It wasn't my intention to mock you. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You mock me and then you ignore me anyway. There is no consensus to include the language on "sensitivity". Contaldo80 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been no further interventions on this RFC and I suggest we start to reach a resolution. Two editors are in favour of a trimmed line in the lead only. Briancua, you were bold, the material was reverted, it has been discussed. You have failed to achieve consensus for its inclusion. We should revert to the earlier version of the article before your additions. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This RFC is less than two weeks old. There is WP:NORUSH. I am hopeful others will chime in still. I think you are mistaken, though. There has been a section on church teaching since the article was two hours old. Removing the section is the bold edit. I agree there is no consensus to keep the section. Neither, however, is there a consensus to remove it. With WP:NOCONSENSUS, it stays. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Material in the lead is usually further explained in the body of the article. This clarification is a concise expression of the whole of Catholic teaching which one should not need to seek out in another article. Jzsj (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• • @Jzsj: I'm not sure there's meaningful disagreement with the principle of including a brief summary, the issue is that BrianCUA wants to include material about how the Church actually doesn't oppose gay people or support discrimination at all, which is at best irrelevant to this article, but more like grossly undue and POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have said on multiple occasions that if the language can be improved, it should be. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)\

@BrianCUA: I believe I've already indicated that in my view, the first improvement would be removing the puffery about respect and unjust discrimination. I think I actually had that in the article at one point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the present wording in the article. Jzsj (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Had to Delete I hated this edit. But, let's deal with the most serious problem. The section as written and the RfC were both copy and paste or close paraphrasing from sources. The first sentence was a virtual copy of the source material. The second and third sentences were direct copies from the handbook source which is itself a reprinting of DignityUSA's FAQs. WP:CV is first order, it had to be deleted immediately regardless of the RfC here. I did not like doing that in the middle of an RfC as an uninvolved editor, but there is a rush in this matter. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, but also Yes Now, onto the RfC. Should this RfC as phrased (assuming fix to CV) be included? No. It is clearly undue (even the Allen book sourcing for the first sentence disagrees with the tone that this section creates). I'm basing this on reading about half of the sources cited, and I did a Nexis serarch for the first three listed organizations and read a third of those articles and this distribution of ideas was not warranted on those sources. This is not just how I feel, this is weight in the source material. But, it seems there would be a necessary and good addition of a 'Beliefs' or 'Ideas' section that includes the content in this RfC. Following the various 'Critics of' articles, they all start with some section simply describing the beliefs (it seems there is consensus about adding such a section to this article as well). I would recommend three guiding ideas. 1. Focus on setting up the dissent. 2. Use neutral voice. Wikipedia's voice should always shape everything as "The Catholic Church says its teachings condemn homosexual acts but..." 3. Aim for tertiary sources. Primary and secondary are likely to be too filled with PR and direct wording rather than putting them in context (the Allen book is a great start and a section that better reflects the weight of his discussion of homosexuality would be a step forward). If a section followed those guides, I think it could certainly include the Catholic Church's stated position, but it needs to be better contextualized than the three sentences did. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a good critique. I don't have access to any but the Martin source, but I rewrote it to avoid any copyright violations. That's important. Thanks for pointing it out. I'd appreciate any further help. Please also note that I recently changed my username to avoid confusion with other individuals or institutions. These were my first edits with the new name.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the very definition of disruptive editing and certainly not in the spirit of collaborative editing. Rather than hearing my concerns, or those of other good faith editors, you added an attrocious section to replace a CV section. I got nothing else to say, but someone who adds a citation to a wikipedia article after a claim of copyvio is raised is not helping. Good luck everyone on improving content on this page, but it appears like it will be an uphill battle at this point. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am not sure why you are upset. You found copyright violations. I rewrote the section address that concern. How is that disruptive? What more can we do to fix the problem? I don't have access to two of the sources, but apparently you do. Can you help? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Communion wafer versus Eucharist

Briancua - as you will note three out of the four sources cited for this incident refer to communion wafer and not "Eucharist". I cannot yet access the 4th source but will check in the library later this evening:

• ACTUP Oral History Project "I put my hands out, and suddenly I have the Communion wafer in my hands".
• ACT UP/ NY Chronology 1989 - "The news media choose to focus on, and distort, a single Catholic demonstrator's personal protest involving a communion wafer."
• DeParle, Jason (January 3, 1990). "Rude, Rash, Effective, Act-Up Shifts AIDS Policy" - "But they had never set off the kind of controversy that began on Dec. 10 at St. Patrick's when one member crumbled a communion wafer."

Despite this you have repeatedly altered the wording away from "communion wafer" in the article to your choice of wording (Eucharist). You have done so on the basis of arguing your own view that "the wafer could be before consecration, in which case there would be nothing to desecrate. The issue is that it was the Eucharist". Can you explain to me why you think going against the cited sources is acceptable in this instance and why your insistence on the use of "Eucharist" (despite not a single verifiable third party source) is acceptable? Can you explain further why you think you should over-rule legitimate concerns without even the courtesy of discussion on the talkpage (recognizing its contentious nature)? Can you clarify why you think you are not falling foul of rules around EDIT-WARRING? Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I explained my rational in the edit summary you cited. By saying "communion wafer," it is unclear if you are referring to the wafer before or after consecration. If it was before consecration, no one would take offense. The reason Catholics consider the action to be a sacrilege is because it took place after consecration. Saying Eucharist over communion wafer eliminates the ambiguity. All of that said, it was you who first added this material to the article, and you used the word Eucharist. There was consensus for it, and the terminology stayed Eucharist for some time. It is now you who is making a contested edit by trying to change it without first changing the consensus, and without taking it to talk. If the consensus changes in favor of communion wafer, I will not object to changing the text. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

BrianCua please be advised that this is not helping your case (an ANI against you remains open). Stop using my words and edits against me as if we're playing some sort of cat and mouse game ok. The sources cited say "communion wafer". If you change this again without citing sources that use the language "Eucharist" then I will refer you for persistent edit-warring. You are presenting your own opinions above with no supporting material. Can I ask you nicely one last time to stop this aggressive approach that seeks to simply over-turn everything that other editors try to do which you don't like. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to play any games. I am simply trying to demonstrate that there was a consensus for Eucharist. If you want to change the verbiage, please change the consensus first. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Where is the consensus Briancua? Which other editors stand alongside you to affirm this "consensus"? You have reverted the section yet again to replace the words "communion wafer" with "Eucharist". You have deliberately scoured online sources to find something that refers specifically to "Eucharist". Despite the fact that the majority of sources cited say "communion wafer". This is not observing neutrality - this is a clear case of bias and edit warring. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." You added the text and used the word "Eucharist" on July 12th. It has been almost three months since then. As no one has objected to the word until now, consensus has been demonstrated to use the word Eucharist. Again, if you can change the consensus, I would be happy to see you change the phrasing. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I objected to Contaldo80's addition of the material because it was not supported by the sources. Therefore Contaldo80 was not able to achieve consensus for use of the word "Eucharist". I have noted Contaldo80's concerns and have removed the word "Eucharist". Contaldo80 - are you happy now that I have addressed your concerns? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are carrying on a conversation with yourself, or why you deleted your bizarre reply. However, I will point you again to WP:BRD. When you make an edit that is reverted, you should take the issue to talk, not edit war. Gain consensus, don't just keep inserting your preferred language. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The version before your contested edit says Eucharist. Please do not continue this behavior. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Briancua this is simply exasperating. I added Eucharist, I took it out. There is no established consensus version that includes Eucharist. The version before my initial addition did not have Eucharist at all. Communion wafer is additionally supported by the majority of sources and is more accurate. Why despite this are you insistent to have Eucharist? Eucharist is your preferred language - no one elses. Can you explain why we should Eucharist and not communion wafer? Because actually I find your approach quite bullying and unpleasant. I don't think you're editing in a way that is fair - you are determined to push a religious POV. You are perverting interpretation of guidance to achieve your own preferred position, and constantly threatening me with recriminations if you don't get your own way. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you are getting so upset. It must be frustrating to feel so strongly about an issue and then not be able to get your own way. It is not my intention to bully you, and I don't believe I have ever threatened you. Please provide me with the dif so that I can see it, make amends, and apologize. I am simply trying to edit in accord with the five pillars and other policies and guidelines. I've pointed out to you that there was an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. As I have said to you many times, if you can change the consensus, I would be glad to change the language. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Communion bread. It seems to me we're asking the wrong question here: it should be "Eucharist" or "Communion bread", and the former is less appropriate since it is a much broader term referring to the whole central thanksgiving part of the Mass. Communion bread is most precise, and better conveys the meal aspect of the Eucharist, while "wafer" goes back to before Vatican II called for hosts that looked more like bread. Jzsj (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I agree with that. As a compromise I will leave in Eucharist too as long as I hope other editors note that this is a compromise and the view of a majority of editors. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

This article is about Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. It is not about Dissent from Knights of Columbus teaching on homosexuality. That one Catholic group disagrees with the position of another Catholic group on homosexuality is tangentially related at best. The information Contaldo is trying to add is much more appropriate for the Catholics United article. Additionally, I will remind him about WP:BRD. He was bold and added information. That's great. He was reverted, though. The appropriate thing to do then would be to take it to talk and gain consensus for this addition, not just re-add the material. With WP:NOCONSENSUS for this material, we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." --BrianCUA (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This is sadly a tried and tested mechanism of yours to block any new material that you personally do not like by referring to the need to achieve "consensus". No one else is involved - it's only you that don't like it. And you don't like anything that makes the Knights of Columbus look bad (as you've demonstrated through a long long list of edits). If another editor says they do not agree the material should be included then I'm happy to reconsider. But for the time-being there is absolutely nothing that would prevent the material from being included as it is properly sourced and does not violate any guidance on neutrality etc as far as I can see. That you personally think the material is tangential is fine; but I don't I'm afraid. The article is about dissent - and why many catholics disagree with the official line both of the Church but also other related church organisations. And unless you can more clearly demonstrate that it is indeed tangential then. Where I do agree with you is that it should also go into the Catholics United article. But then it should also go into the Knights of Columbus article too. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You think one thing. I think another. We disagree. There is no consensus to include the material. There are ways to resolve this dispute, but edit warring is not one of them. Since you missed it the first time, the policy that is violated by including the material is WP:NOCONSENSUS. Without consensus, the material does not stay. Again, please review WP:BRD. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I note the guidance, "Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. They may still occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in winning an argument." The challenge is Briancua, that you are emotionally and ideologically invested in winning any and every issue under discussion. We essentially have a situation across a number of articles where you invoke the "seek consensus" clause for any edits I make (either to add or to remove material). Regardless of how many other editors - or not - have expressed a view. This results in a situation where I essentially have to get your approval - and yours alone - to do anything. And you are clearly determined that no edits that are seen as critical to the teaching or authority of the Roman Catholic church are to pass. So what are we to do then Briancua? Do you think this is genuinely a forum where collectively as editors we can reasoned and rational discussion? Must "Eucharist" always be used - because that shows LGBT protestors to have outrageously defiled the sacred body and blood of Jesus Christ, and not simply crumbled a piece of bread? Must we avoid references to the Knights of Columbus - playing down their active financing of campaigns to stop gay marriage, while re-writing history to suggest that they alone could get Congress to change the Pledge of Allegiance? Must we have oblique references by an English Cardinal about abortion to tangentially reinforce an article about "culture of life" and another by a Nigerian cardinal to explain why he thinks people wearing Rainbow sashes violate the unity of the taking of communion? I remain civil, but I am not happy. How are we to proceed? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

We are to proceed by seeking consensus in all that we do. When you make a constructive edit, I applaud it. I have thanked you on more than one occasion, as the public record will show. When I think you have made an edit that is misguided, I try to improve it. I am sorry that it makes it difficult for you to insert your views into articles, but WP:Consensus is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." --BrianCUA (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-used references

With this edit, a couple references are now defined but not used in the content. This has created four red notifications at the bottom of the references section. Contaldo, would you mind cleaning this up? Also, this seems like a good occasion to mention WP:CITEVAR. It is best practice to have a standard way to cite things. Could we use list-defined references, and put all the citations in the references section? Without them, "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing." Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80, would you please fix the errors your edit caused? Thank you. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Rejection of homosexuality

An editor asked for clarification of "rejection of homosexuality" as used by Tausch in his survey. I am providing the following from that survey: "Growing international sociological evidence seems to suggest that more and more Roman Catholic faithful do not follow anymore the condemnation of the homosexual act as a “deadly sin”, voiced by the official current Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. In simple terms, the question in our essay is primarily whether the rejection of homosexuality still enjoys the support of the rank and file of the global Catholic faithful, and secondly, whether practicing Catholics (weekly Church attenders, “Dominicantes”) are more tolerant than the societies surrounding them in accepting homosexuality and in accepting homosexual neighbors." Contaldo80 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)