Talk:James J. Martin (priest)

Suggestion to rename page

"James Martin (priest, born 1960)" is a bit of an unwieldy title. Looking at the disambiguation page, it seems that renaming this page "James J. Martin (priest)" would sufficiently distinguish him from other people with this name. •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 15:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't do that because WP:MIDDLE says that middle names or initials should follow what is published in reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 22:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Do two opinion columns in minor publications in response to a BLP subject's tweets constitute an event worthy of inclusion in a BLP article? Should the content added in this DIFF be included in the biography of James Martin (priest, born 1960)? --PluniaZ (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Per WP:BLPBALANCE, the views of small minorities should not be included at all. The authors of these opinion columns are not prominent, the publications are minor, and they did not generate coverage in mainstream media publications and therefore do not constitute a significant enough event to be included in a BLP article. Wikipedia is not a diary that includes a person's every tweet and response thereto. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This is why Wikipedia is known as a progressive outlet detached from reality: the "mainstream" sources are always leftist sympathizers and the critics are decried as "fringe" websites. Fr. Martin will continue to be well-regarded here until decent books are written well after he's dead giving a more balanced view. As for me, I think it makes more sense to prohibit primary sources from BLPs, which would result in deletion of this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I too think that BLPs should be mostly limited to news reports and wary of including opinion pieces, which come from every side and run on forever, but have little place in an encyclopedia. And if there's to be a debate on what sins are graver than others, then it should be carried on here. Jzsj (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• • But these news reports are primary sources. BLPs on Wikipedia hardly use any actual reliable secondary sources according to the actual policy. Sans primary sources, BLP reporting would implode here and now. Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is it really that simple? When you add in what's said about independent sources and verifiability and all, there's quite a bit of latitude for common sense judgments. Most of what is published contains the perspective of its prospective readership, books included, and so the word "unduly" before "self-serving" should be carefully noted. Jzsj (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I would delete Longnecker's statement in the last paragraph: "...same-sex marriage has a "legal component and a contractual, formal component" and is "irremediable"." as it sounds contradictory. The same laws that make it a legal contract also provide for divorce, and therefore not "irremediable". (If he means something else, then it should be deleted as unclear.) Manannan67 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as worded. The citations are fine for supporting a discussion of Martin's controversial public statements, but not for the strongly worded text in the edit. Websurfer2 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose mostly because of the prolix nature of the LGBT section. Here's a suggested copy edit: User:Markworthen/sandbox/JMartinSJ. Feel free to copy and modify as you see fit, perhaps when this RfC concludes.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Regardless of whether the publishing entity is major or minor, there remains the fact that they are opinion pieces. I am also noting the part stating that several priests and authors criticized Martin's interpretation of the Canon 915. The USA Today reference did not indicate it. It was only the priest-author who was taking a position against it. Darwin Naz (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This RFC was highly biased and outdated since the first day (cf. gaming the system). The paragraph has been significantly modified and many highly reliable sources added, including the Washington Post, America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, Philadelphia Inquirer. I have deleted Longenecker's sentences. Thucyd (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please read WP:RFC. It is not appropriate for you to edit content under discussion in an RfC. Wait for the RfC to close before making further changes, or I will report you for edit warring. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Furthermore, your proposed revision of the paragraph does not address the concerns raised in this RfC, namely WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:DIARY. The only mainstream media source you've cited that mentions Father Martin's views on the denial of Holy Communion is the Philadelphia Inquirer, but that is only in one columnist's opinion column. The Washington Post article does not quote his tweets, nor does it say that Father Martin has objected to the denial of Holy Communion to anyone. All the WaPo article says about Martin is the following:

“In the last few decades, in many places, all issues have taken a back seat to abortion,” said the Rev. James Martin, the editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America. “Certainly it’s an important issue — and I am pro-life — but it is not the only issue. And it is not even the only ‘life issue.’ ” ... “If you are pro-life, you are pro all life, and that needs to be squared with how you vote,” Martin said.

That is all the WaPo article says about Father Martin. It says nothing about Father Martin taking a stance one way or the other on the denial of Communion to anyone. You also erroneously cite 5 sources for the claim that "several Catholic authors and priests criticized Martin's interpretation of canon 915", when the only 2 that actually contain such criticism are the original 2 for which this RfC was raised. You also engage in original research by citing Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter on Holy Communion, a connection not made by any primary or secondary source in connection with this incident. And the fundamental issue remains that Wikipedia is not a WP:DIARY that records every single tweet a person sends in their life and the responses thereto. This incident hasn't even made into the biography of Joe Biden, so why the heck would it be considered noteworthy here? --PluniaZ (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that your misleading RFC is now outdated and can be closed.

You are gaming the system in order to push your POV. Your strategy is quite simple: you don't try to improve the paragraph, you don't leave me or someone else enough time to improve the content, you make a RFC by calling all the persons who are likely to share your point of view or your ideological bias.

I could have added many other national reliable sources, and you know it. This paragraph is not only about Joe Biden, but about Martin's interpretation of canon 915.

Your claim that James Martin's position is not perfectly known is laughable and sounds desperate. You just have to read the sources already provided (don't you trust America Magazine anymore?). Many other reliable sources could be added. For example the Huffington Post: "The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest who has advocated for the greater inclusion of LGBTQ Catholics, questioned whether priests in cases like Smolenski’s would also deny communion to Catholic employers who refuse to pay their workers a living wage, or married couples using in vitro fertilization, which the church has deemed immoral.“The Catholic Church is called to proclaim church teaching. But church teaching is, at heart, Jesus’s message of love, mercy and forgiveness,” Martin wrote. “The church also has rules. But these rules must be applied across the board, not selectively, and not simply to one group of people. Otherwise it is no longer ‘church teaching.’ It is merely discrimination,” he said."

Crux explicitly made the obvious connection with the Ratzinger's letter. Same thing for the Philadelphia Inquirer and National review, already in the article. Thucyd (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You edited the content after I created the RfC. That is not how the WP:RFC process is supposed to work. Since we both agree on the outcome of this RFC, I will close it. I suggest that you create a diff of how you think the paragraph should read and start a new RfC to gain consensus. The article should remain as it is until consensus is reached on whether to add any new content, in accordance with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. But what I really think you should do is find an article where this series of incidents is more appropriate, such as Eucharist or Canon 915. A BLP isn't supposed to record every instance in which a person commented on an incident. If the incident is noteworthy, then it belongs in its own article or in an article for which it is topical. Your Crux article does not mention Father Martin - please keep this page about Father Martin, and there is no need to mention every opinion column written against him. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2019 (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.

Cases regarding denial of Holy Communion

As discussed in the recently closed RfC, the cases involving the denial of Holy Communion do not involve Father Martin. He merely commented on them. As such, it is not a material event in his life that deserves to be included in this article. I have instead transferred that content to the article Canon 915, which seems to be the most appropriate place for it. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Father Martin's commentary on recent news items

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

It is disputed whether Father Martin's commentary on recent news items involving the public denial of Holy Communion to certain recipients, and two op-ed pieces written in response to his commentary, should be included in his bio page. In particular, it is disputed whether the added material in this DIFF should be added to his bio page. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Both as written and as to substance. As written, this paragraph gets into unnecessary details about the underlying incidents, in which Father Martin was not involved. He merely commented on them. This material belongs in another article more directly related to the incidents, such as Canon 915. As to substance, the entire incident should be excluded from his bio by WP:DIARY. This material only relates to Father Martin in that he made a few comments about the incidents in the form of tweets and statements to a few news outlets. That alone does not constitute an event in his life that is noteworthy of inclusion in his bio page. Public personalities comment on news items all the time, but it doesn't make it into their bio page unless there is something especially noteworthy about the comments, which is not the case here. And the two op-ed pieces written in response to Father Martin are not prominent, are from partisan sources and should be excluded by WP:BLPBALANCE. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support - This short paragraph summarizes Martin's opinion about a recurrent debate in the US Catholic Church: the reception of Communion by persons in manifest grave sin. Martin's opinion is noteworthy, due to the fact that he is one of the most famous priests in the USA, and supported by many reliable sources included in the paragraph (Washington Post, Huffington Post, America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Register, etc.). The bio page of a commentator should include his most interesting public comments. Moreover, this paragraph has nothing to with WP:DIARY: it summarizes in a few sentences the interpretation of a famous commentator, showing a pattern of thought, is not about a trivial matter. The four (not two) op-ed pieces show that, as written in this single sentence, Martin's interpretation of Canon law drew significant criticism among Catholics. Thucyd (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support As the banner says, Father Martin is a commentator, author, and news editor (among other things). How can this article give a full view of him if it doesn't present what he comments and reports on. And as Thucyd touched on above, these stances are well cited with reliable sources.HAL333 23:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support, as this is a notable position that received attention by the media. --Zianon (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support per Thucyd. Consensus seems to be in favor of conclusion, so perhaps it's time to close this RfC and re-add the material. Display name 99 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@PluniaZ: Shouldn't you make clear what paragraph you are speaking about, so that we can find where the issue is. The word "Communion" is nowhere used in the article and I don't know how else to find what the issue is. Has the paragraph in question been removed from the article, and if so in what deletion can we find it? I suggest that this Rfc needs clarification before a decision is reached. Jzsj (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jzsj, I think he did that when he opened the RfC. It appears you didn't bother to read it. If you want to know whether or not the content is still in the article, you can check the editing history. Display name 99 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the technical jargon "DIFF". It would be more respectful of those who come to help without a background in all the Wiki jargon if it was said: "Check at this DIFF for the paragraph which has been removed." Jzsj (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose since the media coverage is so one-sided and confuses "serious matter" with "grave sin" which is a judgment which we are not to apply to individuals. An intelligent commentary would go into the extent of public scandal caused. And in the abortion issue a Catholic can be opposed to abortion but not think this Catholic teaching must become public law in secular society. My other problem is that the America and Washington Post articles are not generally accessible on internet. Also, some Catholics would see here a divide on the homosexual issue, between Catholics who in cases like this see Communion as medicine for us sinners and not just a reward for the righteous. Jzsj (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Jzsj, there are several issues here. The word diff was capitalized and put in bold. A person not sure what it meant could have clicked on it. You are a veteran editor on this site and most people who've been active on Wikipedia for even a little while know what the word means or can at least figure it out if they don't. I also don't see how your proposed version of how he presented the material could have made things any more clear.

You say that a Catholic can choose not to believe that Catholic teaching on abortion must become law "in a secular society." That doesn't seem relevant here, but even if it is, your statement is contradicted by paragraph 2273 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority." Say what you will about grave sin, but Canon 915 specifically states that those who persist in "manifest grave sin" cannot receive Holy Communion. You might not like it, but the text accurately reflects what is written in canon law, which is what actually matters. The Washington Post and America are both considered reliable sources, and even if people sometimes have trouble accessing them on the Internet (and I am one of them), that does not make them unacceptable for usage here. The Washington Post in particular is a high-quality source which is widely utilized on Wikipedia articles. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit I was rushing, but I find it rare and unhelpful to remove a passage from the article while it's being discussed. CCC 2273 doesn't say that we may judge who is in grace sin, that is for the individual to decide,even while the pastor may exclude the person without judging them. Catholics may disagree on which "inalienable rights" must be preserved, especially since the Church doesn't claim that it knows when an embryo becomes a human person. I wasn't denying the usability of WP and A, just a hitch in making the paragraph clear. Jzsj (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it's customary to keep a disputed passage out of the article until consensus is reached to include it. I believe that the paragraph should be in the article, but it was technically correct to remove it if there was not consensus. The paragraph never says that a priest can judge who is in grave sin, only that someone in "manifest grave sin" cannot be admitted to Holy Communion, which is exactly what the canon says. So I'm not sure where the problem is. The Catechism makes it clear which inalienable rights must be preserved, because that passage came directly after it spent considerable time denouncing abortion. Your statement that the Church doesn't claim to know when human personhood begins is, with respect, pure and utter nonsense. The WP and America are not even the essential sources used in the paragraph. There are multiple citations to other sources which cover more content. Display name 99 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The "nonesense" you refer to is in The National Catholic Register, a part of the conservative, formerly Mother Angelica, holdings. There it explains the human-being, human-person distinction that the church has always maintained. Since we, admittedly, don't know when we have a human person, it remains a matter of speculation, I suggest that the most we'll be able to get into public law (after years of electing Republicans who make this their one, big, moral issue) is what a majority of the people believe, that the embryo is to be treated like a person in the third trimester. As to receiving Communion, Pope Francis' stand on (adulterating?) remarried couples receiving Communion (long known in confessional practice) may possibly be pointing to new directions in what Jesus intended by this sacrament, though now this is only for speculation in scholarly journals. You're correct on the grave sin, saying it is "manifest" means "apparent", and is not a judgment on the personal conscience of the person. But let's not mislead people into thinking that the statement on Communion in the code (915) has any direct connection to the catechism of Pope John Paul reflections on abortion. Jzsj (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:FORUM, I'm not debating any further on issues that have no connection to what goes in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope that what we've said here will help some to know what to look for in trying to improve this article. Jzsj (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2020 (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.